(PC) Casity v. Riebe ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD D. CASITY, Case No. 2:22-cv-02181-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 TODD RIEBE, et al., ECF No. 6 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 17 (2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE 19 DISMISSED 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 Plaintiff Richard Casity is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 23 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, he alleges that defendant district 24 attorney Todd Riebe had him arrested for threatening defendant Matthew Riebe, who is Todd 25 Riebe’s son and plaintiff’s son-in-law. These allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. I will 26 27 28 1 give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, and I will grant his application to 2 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6.1 3 Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 1 Plaintiff initially filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which did not include 27 the trust account statement from the jail. ECF No. 2. He subsequently filed a new application that includes his trust account statement. ECF No. 6. Since I am granting plaintiff’s completed 28 application, ECF No. 6, I will deny the initial application, ECF No. 2, as unnecessary. 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant district attorney Todd Riebe had him arrested for 3 threatening defendant Matthew Riebe, who is Todd’s son and plaintiff’s son-in-law.2 4 ECF No.1 at 3-4. Plaintiff claims that he sought to have his criminal case moved to a different 5 county because of his relationship to Todd and because his daughter works as a clerk at the 6 Amador County Courthouse, but a state court judge denied that request. Id. 7 Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a viable claim. Defendant Todd is immune from this 8 suit. A prosecutor has absolute immunity from section 1983 liability for “initiating a prosecution 9 and in presenting the State’s case . . . .” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). More 10 importantly, plaintiff appears to be raising claims based on an ongoing state criminal prosecution. 11 Federal courts are barred from intervening in such prosecutions by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 12 37, 45-46 (1971). Defendant Matthew is not a proper defendant in this civil rights action as he is 13 a private individual and plaintiff has not alleged that Matthew was acting as a state actor. West v. 14 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the 15 violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that 16 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”); Price v. 17 Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that generally private parties are “not acting 18 under color of state law” for purposes of § 1983). 19 I will grant him a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be 20 dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 21 supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 22 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 23 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 24 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 25 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 26 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 27 2 Since defendants share the same last name, I will refer to them by their first names to 28 avoid confusion. 1 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 2 || amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is granted. 5 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 6 | complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 7 | option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 8 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 9 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie — Dated: _ April 5, 2023 aw—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28