(PC) Calderon v. Bonta ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-00212-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROB BONTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he has filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2). The court will grant the in 20 forma pauperis application and screen the complaint. 21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 5 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 7 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 10 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 11 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 17 678. 18 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 20 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 22 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 23 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 24 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 Screening Order 26 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening because it violates Rule 8. A sufficiently 27 plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” 28 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, when asked on the form civil rights 1 complaint to identify the “issue involved,” plaintiff checked every single box, which includes the 2 following: basic necessities, disciplinary proceedings, excessive force by an officer, mail, 3 property, threat to safety, access to the court, exercise of religion, other (not specified), medical 4 care, and retaliation. See ECF No. 1 at 3, 4, 5. Plaintiff does not elaborate on these “issues” in 5 the body of the complaint, and thus, none of the defendants are clearly linked to the purported 6 violations of plaintiff’s civil rights. Further, the conclusory nature of plaintiff’s allegations and 7 how, if at all, each individual was directly responsible for any violation of plaintiff’s rights, 8 convinces the court that the complaint does not put defendants on notice of the claims against 9 them. 10 Plaintiff’s complaint also names defendants who are immune from suit, including superior 11 court judges, a prosecutor, and court-appointed attorneys. See ECF No. 1 at 8-9. Plaintiff claims 12 that the judges denied him legal assistance and that the prosecutor and court-appointed attorneys 13 denied him “relief.” Id. The judges, however, are immune from plaintiff’s suit to the extent 14 plaintiff’s claims against them are based on acts performed in their capacities as judges. See 15 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (1986). The attorneys are also immune from plaintiff’s 16 suit. See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837 (1991) (“Whether the government attorney is 17 representing the plaintiff or the defendant, or is conducting a civil trial, criminal prosecution or an 18 agency hearing, absolute immunity is ‘necessary to assure that . . . advocates . . . can perform 19 their respective functions without harassment or intimidation.’” (citation omitted)). 20 The substance of the complaint details plaintiff’s underlying conviction from 1992 and 21 complains of an unfair jury, incompetent counsel, and false imprisonment. See ECF No. 1 at 10- 22 11. These claims, if successful, would necessarily undermine the duration of plaintiff’s current 23 confinement. The rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, (1994), states that if 24 success in a section 1983 action would implicitly question the validity of confinement or its 25 duration, the plaintiff must first show that the underlying conviction was reversed on direct 26 appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the 27 grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). The complaint 28 itself is premised on the allegation that no such relief has been granted. Indeed, the substance of 1 plaintiff’s allegations sound in habeas rather than the conditions of his confinement. See, e.g., 2 ECF No. 1 at 7 (alleging “excessive confinement false imprisonment; and general obstruction of 3 the due course of justice on state/federal courts to prolong[ ] incarceration with racial 4 bias/madness/abuse of power/authority due to plaintiff’s criminal case factors and nationality 5 origin”). To the extent plaintiff is requesting to be released from custody, his claim must be 6 brought in a habeas action. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927-931 (9th Cir. 2016) 7 (claims which would result in immediate release if successful fall within core of habeas corpus; 8 claims which would not necessarily affect the length of time to be served if successful fall outside 9 core of habeas corpus and must be brought, if at all, under § 1983). 10 Based on the foregoing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 11 Leave to Amend 12 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended 13 complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial 14 way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 15 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, 16 participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the 17 alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 18 closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 19 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 20 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 22 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 23 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 24 multiple defendants. Id. 25 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 26 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 27 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 28 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 1 |} F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 2 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 3 | 1967)). 4 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 5 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 6 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 7 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 8 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 9 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 10 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 11 Conclusion 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 14 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 15 || in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 16 | concurrently herewith; 17 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 18 | of service of this order; and 19 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 20 21 | DATED: February 27, 2023. □□ PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28