(PC) Shannon v. Bachand et al, No. 2:2022cv01066 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/05/22 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the not ice to the San Joaquin County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and because of the Younger Abstention Doctine. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Shannon v. Bachand et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SETH PETER SHANNON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-1066-EFB (PC) v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VICTOR BACHAND, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds it 26 must be dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff purports to bring a claim of malicious 27 prosecution and seeks protection from this court against the “continuation of criminal proceedings 28 ///// 2 1 that have been intentionally caused by officer’s and prosecutor’s unconstitutional malicious acts.” 2 ECF No. 1 at 3. 3 First, plaintiff may not pursue a malicious prosecution claim at this time given that he 4 appears to be awaiting trial. See Womack v. County of Amador, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1031 (E.D. 5 Cal. 2008) (“If a plaintiff cannot establish [that the proceedings were pursued to a legal 6 termination in his favor], his malicious prosecution action will fail.”). Thus, plaintiff cannot state 7 a claim upon which relief can be granted. 8 9 Second, claims challenging aspects of the proceedings and rulings in an ongoing case must be raised in those proceedings or on appeal afterwards. This court must abstain from 10 hearing those challenges based on the Younger Abstention Doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 11 U.S. 37, 45, 46 (1971). Younger requires a district court to dismiss a federal action if the relevant 12 state proceedings are: (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide plaintiff 13 an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass'n v. City of 14 Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). All of these elements appear satisfied here – the 15 criminal proceedings are ongoing, important state interests are implicated in a criminal 16 prosecution, and there is no indication that plaintiff could not raise his claims in his criminal 17 cases. Further, there is no allegation of extraordinary circumstances which would warrant federal 18 intervention. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45 (federal courts may not intervene in state criminal 19 actions “except under extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable loss is both 20 great and immediate.”). 21 For these reasons, this action must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Gardner v. 22 Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 23 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely 24 clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (internal quotation 25 marks omitted)); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court 26 should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 27 determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 28 ///// 3 1 2 Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 4 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 5 in accordance with the notice to the San Joaquin County Sheriff filed concurrently 6 herewith. 7 8 9 10 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and because of the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 17 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: August 5, 2022. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
