(PC) Mariscal v. Superior Court of California County of Riverside ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 OMAR MARISCAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00089-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12 v. RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al., (ECF NO. 13) 14 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 17 DISTRICT JUDGE 18 Omar Mariscal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on 20 January 17, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that it 21 failed to state a claim because it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, 22 and 20. (ECF No. 3). The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between filing an amended 23 complaint or notifying the Court that he wants to stand on his complaint. 24 Plaintiff filed his first Amended Complaint on February 27, 2020. (ECF No. 4). The 25 Court screened the First Amended Complaint, and found that it failed to comply with Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. (ECF No. 6). Because Plaintiff appeared to have 27 attempted to comply with the Court’s prior order, and because “the court should freely give 28 leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court again allowed 1 Plaintiff to choose between filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court that he wants to 2 stand on his complaint. (ECF No. 6). 3 On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13). 4 Plaintiff has once again failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. 5 Additionally, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to assert new and unrelated claims. 6 Accordingly, the Court is only evaluating the first claim in Plaintiff’s complaint, and finds that 7 it should be dismissed because it is barred by the favorable termination rule. The Court will 8 recommend that the rest of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed, without prejudice, because they are 9 new and unrelated to the first claim. 10 Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of service of these findings and 11 recommendations to file his objections. 12 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 13 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 14 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 15 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 16 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 17 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 19 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 20 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 21 not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 22 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 23 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 25 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 26 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts 27 “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 28 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a 1 plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 2 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 3 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 4 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 5 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 At times, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is difficult to understand. What 7 follows is the Court’s best understanding of Plaintiff’s allegations. 8 Plaintiff lists two claims in his complaint. In his first claim, Plaintiff appears to attempt 9 to challenge his conviction and the duration of his sentence. Plaintiff sues two investigators 10 and two probation officers, alleging that they “falsified allegation[s] with multiple charges with 11 same & similar offenses to a violation of prior offenses that never occurred or to come in to 12 [sic] existence.” There was no DNA expert report by the doctors for the rape charges. Plaintiff 13 also sues the prosecutor for misconduct because he did not have strong evidence before 14 bringing the charges before the grand jury and did not present a DNA expert during the jury 15 trial. Plaintiff also appears to allege that the prosecutor used false evidence. The sentencing 16 judge ignored the law and sentenced Plaintiff to a hundred years to life. In his request for 17 relief, Plaintiff states that he is challenging his wrongful conviction. 18 In his first claim, Plaintiff also alleges that “they’d never mail to me & denied my 19 request to have all portion [sic] of my legal documents is a violation of my civil rights! Access 20 to the court.” Plaintiff does not specify who “they” are. 21 In his second claim, Plaintiff sues prison officials at California Correctional Institution 22 and two Board of Parole Hearing commissioners. Plaintiff alleges that all convicted persons 23 are supposed to receive a copy of any statement submitted by the Court, District Attorney, law 24 enforcement agency, or defense counsel. This never happened. Plaintiff’s family needs to go 25 online and get his criminal case report. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 1 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 2 A. New and Unrelated Claims 3 A complaint must comply with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 4 and 20. Under these rules, a plaintiff may not proceed on a myriad of unrelated claims against 5 different defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2). “The controlling 6 principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original 7 claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, may join, either as independent or as 8 alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an 9 opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 10 Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated 11 claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of 12 morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners 13 pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of 14 frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” K’napp v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2013 WL 5817765, at *2 16 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2013), aff’d sub nom. K’napp v. California Dept. of Corrections & 17 Rehabilitation, 599 Fed. App’x. 791 (9th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting George v. 18 Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons … may be 19 joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, 20 severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, 21 or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all 22 defendants will arise in the action.”). 23 Plaintiff’s claim challenging his conviction and sentence appears to be entirely 24 unrelated to his claims regarding legal mail and denial of access to legal property. There 25 appears to be no common defendants, issues of law, or issues of fact.1 26 Additionally, this appears to be the first time Plaintiff has asserted that he is not 27 28 1 In his first claim Plaintiff does allege that “they’d never mail to [him] & denied [his] request to have all portion [sic] of [his] legal documents,” but Plaintiff does not specify who “they” are. 1 receiving mail related to his criminal case and that he was denied access to his legal property, 2 despite the Court’s warning that, while the Court was granting leave to amend, the Court was 3 not giving Plaintiff permission to add unrelated claims. (ECF No. 6, p. 9). 4 Accordingly, the Court will only evaluate the first claim in Plaintiff’s complaint, that is, 5 the claim challenging his conviction and sentence. The Court will recommend that the rest of 6 Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed, without prejudice, because they are new and unrelated to the 7 first claim. 8 B. Plaintiff’s Claim Challenging his Conviction and Sentence 9 Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the favorable termination rule. 10 “[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or 11 duration of his confinement. He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state 12 relief) instead.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (citations and internal quotation 13 marks omitted). 14 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the United States Supreme Court 15 held that to recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a 16 conviction or sentence invalid,” a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence 17 was reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. This favorable termination rule preserves 18 the rule that claims which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction 19 or sentence, must be brought by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, after exhausting 20 appropriate avenues for relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-751 (2004). 21 “The applicability of the favorable termination rule turns solely on whether a successful 22 § 1983 action would necessarily render invalid a conviction, sentence, or administrative 23 sanction that affected the length of the prisoner’s confinement.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 24 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). In Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court 25 held that, “if a criminal conviction arising out of the same facts stands and is fundamentally 26 inconsistent with the unlawful behavior for which section 1983 damages are sought, the 1983 27 action must be dismissed.” But if the “action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the 28 invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be 1 allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 2 Plaintiff appears to allege that he filed an appeal and a writ of habeas corpus regarding 3 his conviction and sentence, but he lost his appeal and his writ of habeas corpus was denied. 4 (ECF No. 13, p. 2). As Plaintiff is directly challenging his conviction and sentence but has not 5 received a favorable termination, Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim is barred by the favorable 6 termination rule. 7 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER 8 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and finds that 9 Plaintiff’s first claim is barred by the favorable termination rule. The remainder of Plaintiff’s 10 claims should be dismissed, without prejudice, because they are new and unrelated to the first 11 claim. 12 The Court does not recommend granting further leave to amend because the Court has 13 provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint with the benefit of relevant legal 14 standards, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint with the guidance of those legal 15 standards, and Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. The Court 16 notes that Plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend twice. 17 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s claim challenging his conviction and sentence be dismissed with 19 prejudice; 20 2. All other claims be dismissed without prejudice; and 21 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 22 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 23 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 24 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 25 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 28 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 wOoOe SIN IN NS ORME OPI ree AYN 1 || (9th Cir. 1991)). 2 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 3 || judge to this case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 21, 2020 □□□ hey — 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28