(PC) Shropshire v. Cissna ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN NEIL SHROPSHIRE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01693-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 TERRIE CISSNA, et al., ECF Nos. 7 & 10 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 DISMISSED 19 ECF No. 1 20 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 21 22 Plaintiff Ryan Shropshire is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 23 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendant Cissna falsified a search 24 warrant affidavit and fabricated evidence for use against him in his criminal trial. ECF No. 1. 25 Because his claims appear to contest the validity of his criminal conviction, which has not 26 terminated in his favor, they are barred under the Heck doctrine.1 I will give plaintiff an 27 28 1 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 1 opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his allegations. If he fails to 2 do so, I will recommend that his complaint be dismissed. I will grant his application to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 7 & 10. 4 Screening and Pleading Requirements 5 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 6 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 7 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 8 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 9 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 10 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 13 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 15 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 16 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 17 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 18 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 19 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 20 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 22 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 23 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 25 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 26 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27 28 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Cissna, an El Dorado County Sheriff’s deputy, procured a 3 search warrant by “deliberately and improperly with[holding] material information” from an 4 affidavit. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff asserts that he was not present at the place of the search and 5 that “[n]othing was found tying [him] to any criminal activity.” Id. at 21. He also alleges that 6 defendant Cissna provided false testimony regarding information “fabricated in her police 7 report.” Id. at 22. He claims that he has consequently endured two-and-a-half years of unlawful 8 custody and a resulting loss of wages, custody, health care, and dental care. Id. 9 Allegations that an officer either procured a search warrant by falsifying an affidavit, 10 fabricated evidence for use at trial, or gave false testimony at trial can, in certain circumstances, 11 give rise to causes of action under § 1983.2 Under the Heck doctrine, “claims challeng[ing] the 12 integrity of criminal prosecutions,” McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149, 2156 (2019), such as 13 these, cannot be brought under § 1983 unless the plaintiff’s criminal case has terminated in his or 14 her favor. See id. (holding that favorable termination is an element of a § 1983 Fourteenth 15 Amendment fabricated evidence claim); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 584 (9th Cir. 2007) 16 (holding that the Heck doctrine bars civil suits that “challenge the search and seizure of the 17 evidence upon which [the plaintiff’s] criminal charges and convictions were based”). Plaintiff’s 18 complaint states that his “case is still before the Court of Appeal on not only direct appeal but 19 also Habeas Corpus.” ECF No. 4 at 1. Notwithstanding his claim that the allegedly unlawful 20 search yielded nothing “tying him to any criminal activity,” id. at 21, he states that “one of the 21 things being reviewed [on appeal or habeas review] is the search warrant,” id. at 1. This 22 statement indicates that his criminal case has not terminated in his favor and that he intends this 23 24 2 Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege both a Fourth Amendment judicial deception claim, see Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2002) (A plaintiff states a claim of Fourth 25 Amendment judicial deception when he or she plausibly alleges that an officer procured a search warrant by “submit[ing] an affidavit that contained statements he knew to be false or would have 26 known to be false had he not recklessly disregarded the truth.”); and a Fourteenth Amendment 27 deliberate fabrication of evidence claim, see Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deliberate fabrication of evidence by a state 28 official.”). 1 | suit as acollateral attack on his conviction. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims cannot, at least in 2 | their current form, be brought in a § 1983 action. 3 I will give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be 4 | dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 5 || supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 6 | (enbanc). This means that the amended complaint must be complete on its face without 7 | reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 8 | filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, 9 | as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s 10 | involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended 11 | Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 12 | complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 7 & 10, are granted. 15 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 16 | complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 17 || option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 18 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 19 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ May 10, 2022 □□ 23 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28