(PC) Simon v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENDALL DEJUAN SIMON, No. 2:21-cv-1418 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 5. 19 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 20 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 21 action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 22 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(e)(2). 24 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 25 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 26 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 27 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 28 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 1 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 2 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 3 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 4 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 5 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 6 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 7 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 8 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 9 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 10 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 11 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 13 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 14 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 15 cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 16 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 18 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 22 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 23 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 24 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 25 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 26 II. First Amended Complaint 27 Despite being explicitly advised that the State of California was immune from suit and 28 could not be a defendant, plaintiff has once again alleged that defendant State of California has 1 subjected plaintiff to false imprisonment, criminal negligence, false arrest, and kidnapping. ECF 2 No. 5. No other defendants are named. Id. Plaintiff seeks freedom from incarceration and 3 damages. Id. at 6. 4 As the court previously advised, “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in 5 federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Edelman v. Jordan, 6 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974) (citations omitted). “Will[v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 7 U.S. 58 (1989),] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed 8 Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or 9 state court.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). Because plaintiff has once again named 10 only the State of California, his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. To the extent plaintiff 11 is attempting to allege state law claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 12 such claims unless plaintiff has also stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 13 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988) (when federal claims are 14 eliminated before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental 15 jurisdiction). 16 To the extent plaintiff’s request to be released from custody indicates that he is attempting 17 to challenge the legality of his confinement, that claim is not appropriate here. See Nettles v. 18 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to attack the 19 legality of the conviction or sentence”). Plaintiff was previously advised that any challenge to his 20 current confinement in the state hospital must be done by way of habeas petition. ECF No. 4 at 4. 21 Since it appears from the allegations that any such petition would be properly before the United 22 States District Court for the Central District of California,1 the court should decline to offer 23 plaintiff the option to convert this action to a habeas petition. 24 III. No Leave to Amend 25 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 26 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 27 1 Both the original and amended complaints indicate that plaintiff was arrested and confined in 28 Los Angeles County. 1 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 2 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 3 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the first amended complaint fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted. Given that the first amended complaint once again 6 names only the State of California despite clear instruction that it cannot be a defendant and any 7 habeas action would not be properly before this court, it does not appear that further amendment 8 would result in a cognizable claim. As a result, leave to amend would be futile and the first 9 amended complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. 10 IV. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 11 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 12 because the only defendant you have named cannot be sued in federal court. If you are trying to 13 challenge the legality of your confinement, you need to file a habeas petition and it appears that 14 the proper place to file a petition is the United States District Court for the Central District of 15 California. 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 17 shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 18 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint be dismissed 19 without leave to amend. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 24 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: April 29, 2022 A / ~ 4 ALLISON CLAIRE. 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28