Romancorrea 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 ANTONIO ROMANCORREA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00242-NONE-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS BARRED 12 v. BY THE FAVORABLE-TERMINATION RULE 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al. ORDER THAT, IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT 14 WISH TO PURSUE AN APPLICATION FOR Defendants. HABEAS CORPUS, HE FILE AN AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 17 ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE SEND PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION FOR 18 A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 19 Plaintiff Antonio Romancorrea is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 20 rights action.1 Plaintiff argues that his conviction and sentence are unlawful, and requests relief 21 “for being incarcerated for the crime that [he] did not commit.” ECF No. 1 at 6. 22 Habeas relief is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his 23 confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Even if plaintiff wishes to 24 obtain relief other than his release—relief that might properly be channeled through a civil rights 25 complaint rather than a habeas petition—plaintiff would first need to show that his underlying 26 27 1 On the first page of plaintiff’s complaint form, he has not filled in any of the boxes indicating 28 how the court has jurisdiction over the action. ECF No. 1 at 1. 1 conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Accordingly, the court orders 2 plaintiff to make such a demonstration. If he cannot, we will recommend that his claims be 3 dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey. 4 Instead of filing this lawsuit, plaintiff may wish to file a petition for habeas corpus. If so, 5 that petition should comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, including the requirement 6 of § 2254(b)(1)(A) that the petitioner has first “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of 7 the State” in which he was convicted. In other words, before he is able to receive relief here in 8 federal court, plaintiff must have finished the appeals process in his state of conviction. 9 The court notes that plaintiff’s complaint includes brief allegations that he has limited law 10 library access, lives in a facility that has leaks, and works in a kitchen space that is dirty and 11 slippery. See ECF No. 1 at 5. These allegations are different from the main thrust of plaintiff’s 12 complaint—which concerns his conviction and incarceration—and, standing along, they are 13 insufficient to state a claim. They do not identify any defendants that have deprived plaintiff of a 14 right. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for example, a plaintiff must show that a 15 defendant acting under color of state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by 16 federal law. See Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 More broadly, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is 18 entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 19 plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility 20 standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft 21 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than 22 the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint 23 need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 24 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations 25 that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 26 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 27 Should plaintiff wish to pursue a claim that prison officials have deprived him of a federal 28 right—and, again, the court believes plaintiff is primarily interested in challenging the fact of his 1 | conviction or incarceration—he must submit an amended complaint that makes those allegations 2 | in more detail. 3 | ORDER 4 1. Plaintiff has thirty days to show cause why his central claim of illegal incarceration 5 | should not be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff may make this showing by 6 | demonstrating that his underlying conviction has been invalidated. 7 2. Alternatively, or in addition, plaintiff may wish to file an amended complaint that 8 | focuses on alleged constitutional deprivations in his prison. Any amended complaint will 9 | supersede the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 10 | 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete on its face without reference to the prior, superseded 11 | pleading, see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original 12 | complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 13 | an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 14 || alleged. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the 15 | appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 16 3. The clerk’s office is ordered to send plaintiff an application form for a writ of habeas 17 | corpus. 18 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( Waban Dated: _ March 24, 2020 22 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 | No. 205. 25 26 27 28