(PC) Turner v. United States Department ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-0435 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff filed a motion for a 18 180-day extension of time to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff argues that due to the 19 conflicts in the law library, overcrowding, and no law books to cite the law, as well as delays in 20 getting to the law library, it is “impossible to have immediate access to the courts,” and therefore 21 seeks a six-month extension of time. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) 22 Plaintiff’s arguments do not support such a lengthy extension of time; indeed, most 23 prisoners are subject to delays in accessing the law library. Moreover, plaintiff is reminded that a 24 complaint is focused on facts; legal citations are not required. The court (and defendant) should 25 be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 26 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide an example of 27 how “dramatically short and plain” a complaint can be. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177: 28 //// 1 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle 3 against plaintiff, who was then crossing said highway. 4 3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his 5 business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one 6 thousand dollars. 7 Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of _____ dollars and costs. 8 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 9. 10 Further, the instant record does not support such a lengthy extension of time. The record 11 reflects that it is unclear whether plaintiff can state a cognizable federal civil rights claim. In his 12 original complaint, plaintiff named the “United States Department” as a defendant in the caption, 13 but named only Wells Fargo bank tellers in the defendants’ section, but then included three 14 wholly unrelated causes of action: identity theft; challenges related to his plea bargain; and 15 alleged mistreatment in medical care prior to being taken into jail custody. (ECF No. 1.) All of 16 those allegations failed to state cognizable civil rights claims. Plaintiff’s amended complaint 17 failed to name a proper defendant and raised claims solely based on state law, again failing to 18 state cognizable civil rights claims. Plaintiff was reminded that if he wished to challenge his no 19 contest plea, he must do so by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 20 (ECF No. 14 at 4.) Also, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages, plaintiff is advised that he cannot 21 proceed on a §1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of his conviction or 22 sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 23 In addition, a prisoner may not bring a § 1983 action until he has exhausted such 24 administrative remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is 25 1 Before plaintiff pursues habeas relief in federal court, he must first exhaust his state court 26 remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing 27 the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 28 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 1 | mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Under these authorities, plaintiff may 2 | only file an amended pleading that raises claims for which he exhausted all available 3 | administrative remedies prior to the filing of this action on March 11, 2019. 4 Therefore, to the extent plaintiff needs extended law library access in order to search for 5 | and find a federal civil rights claim, it may be that he prematurely filed this action. If so, plaintiff 6 | may seek to voluntarily dismiss this action and choose to file it once he identifies his federal 7 | claims and exhausts his administrative remedies as to such claims. If not, plaintiff is advised that 8 | itis incumbent upon him to diligently prosecute this action he chose to file in federal court. 9 Finally, plaintiff is cautioned that by signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he 10 | has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of 11 this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 11. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's motion for a 180-day extension of time (ECF No. 15) is denied; and 15 2. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file a second 16 | amended complaint, or he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal and this action will be 17 | dismissed without prejudice. No further extensions of time will be granted. 18 | Dated: August 2, 2019 i Fensbl A Abar 20 KENDALL J. NE /turn0435.36 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28