(PC) Ramirez v. Kauffman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS A. RAMIREZ, No. 2:20-cv-1177 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFFREY KAUFFMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated at Solano County’s Stanton Correctional Facility. He is 18 proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion 19 to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff’s complaint for screening. This court finds below that 20 plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim under § 1983. Accordingly, this court recommends this 21 action be dismissed. 22 SCREENING 23 I. Legal Standards for Civil Rights Complaints 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 27 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 28 //// 1 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 3 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 5 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 8 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of 9 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 11 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 12 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 13 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 14 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 15 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 16 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 17 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 18 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 19 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 20 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 21 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 22 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 23 or other proper proceeding for redress. 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 25 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 26 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 27 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 28 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform 1 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 2 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 3 II. Does Plaintiff State Claims Cognizable under § 1983? 4 Plaintiff alleges multiple claims in his complaint. As best this court can tell from 5 plaintiff’s allegations, he is a pretrial detainee. All of plaintiff’s claims involve his pending state 6 court criminal proceedings. Plaintiff’s claims appear to challenge pre-arrest proceedings (i.e., 7 entrapment by “federal agents”), the conduct of witnesses at court proceedings (i.e., false 8 testimony, manufactured evidence), the conduct of his counsel, the conduct of the judge (i.e., 9 violating of right to a speedy trial), and an apparent determination that he is incompetent to stand 10 trial. None of these allegations state claims that are cognizable in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 11 1983. 12 Federal courts may not interfere with pending state criminal cases, absent extraordinary 13 circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 14 If the threat to plaintiff’s federally protected rights may be eliminated by his defense of the 15 criminal case, irreparable injury does not exist. Further, “even irreparable injury is insufficient 16 [to allow interference] unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. 17 Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)). None of plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate such 18 extraordinary circumstances. 19 In addition, to the extent plaintiff seeks a release from custody, any challenge to the 20 legality of his custody must be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which plaintiff 21 would seek under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff is 22 warned that he may not seek habeas relief in this court until he has exhausted his state court 23 remedies by giving the California courts a full and fair opportunity to rule on his claims. 28 24 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 25 Finally, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages for currently being in custody, plaintiff is 26 informed he cannot proceed on a §1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of 27 such custody. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). In other words, before plaintiff 28 //// wOOe 2:OU VV VEE POP RINE MVOC POY OF ME St 1 | may bring suit for damages based on his claims herein, he must first succeed on a habeas petition 2 | challenging the basis for his custody. 3 For all of the above reasons, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed. Because this court 4 | finds plaintiff cannot succeed on any challenge under § 1983 to his pending state criminal case, 5 | permitting plaintiff to amend the complaint would be futile. Dismissal should be without leave to 6 | amend.! 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure 8 || to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 13 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 | time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 15 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | Dated: August 11, 2020 17 18 19 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 | DLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/ramil177.scrn fr 22 23 24 25 26 ——_—_ ' Because this court finds this action should be dismissed without leave to amend, it does not 28 | address plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.