(PC) Foster v. The State Department of State Hospitals, No. 2:2021cv01286 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/16/2021 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign this matter to a district court judge and DENYING as unnecessary plaintiff's 5 motion to proceed ifp. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 1 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and the Clerk be directed to close this case. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Foster v. The State Department of State Hospitals Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 No. 2:21-cv-01286-CKD P Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Screening Requirement 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 27 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 28 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 2 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 3 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 4 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 5 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 6 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 7 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 8 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 9 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 10 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 11 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 12 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 14 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 15 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 16 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 17 II. 18 At the time of filing the complaint, plaintiff was a pretrial detainee confined at the Allegations in the Complaint 19 Sacramento County Main Jail. Plaintiff alleges that his “state mental hospital assessment is 20 unpermitted, unwarranted and unauthorized by a presiding judge” and has resulted in his 21 unnecessary incarceration beyond the 28 day mental hospital hold, violating his right to a speedy 22 trial. He names the Department of State Hospitals as the only defendant in this civil action. 23 III. 24 The following legal standards are being provided to plaintiff based on his pro se status as 25 Legal Standards well as the nature of the allegations in his complaint. 26 A. Linkage Requirement 27 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 28 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 2 1 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 2 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 3 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 4 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 5 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 6 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 7 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 8 plaintiff's federal rights. 9 10 B. Eleventh Amendment In his complaint plaintiff has named the Department of State Hospitals as the defendant. 11 However, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private 12 parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See 13 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); 14 Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). 15 C. Habeas Versus § 1983 Action 16 Plaintiff has filed a § 1983 action challenging his ongoing confinement based on an 17 asserted speedy trial violation. However, when a state prisoner challenges the legality of his 18 custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate 19 release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser 20 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Additionally, a federal habeas corpus action is only 21 available once plaintiff has been convicted and has exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). 23 IV. 24 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it seeks monetary relief from a 25 defendant who is immune from suit and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In 26 the instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims 27 against the Department of State Hospitals are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be 28 dismissed. Even if plaintiff had identified a proper defendant, his claims for relief are not Analysis 3 1 cognizable in the present civil rights action because he is challenging the legality of his ongoing 2 incarceration which is only appropriate in a habeas corpus petition. For all these reasons, 3 plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. For all these reasons, the undersigned recommends 4 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. 5 Once the court finds that a complaint or claim should be dismissed for failure to state a 6 claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Leave to amend should 7 be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if 8 a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. 9 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to 10 amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that 11 the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citation omitted). 12 However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a claim cannot be cured by amendment, 13 the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06. 14 It appears to the court that amendment of this case would be futile because the claims 15 against defendant are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and because they are not cognizable in 16 the present civil rights action. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that these claims be 17 dismissed without leave to amend. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 18 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the 19 court does not have to allow futile amendments). 20 V. 21 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 22 23 Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party intended as legal advice. The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that the claims 24 against the defendant are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and do not state a claim for relief in 25 a civil rights action. It is recommended that your complaint be dismissed because these problems 26 are not fixable. 27 28 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the correct outcome in your case. Label your explanation “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 4 1 and Recommendations.” The district judge assigned your case will then review the case and 2 make the final decision in this matter. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is denied as unnecessary. 6 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; and, 8 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Dated: November 16, 2021 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12/fost1286.F&R.docx 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
