(PC) James v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:21-cv-00713-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against the city and county of Sacramento and 22 Thebeau and LeRose, two detectives employed by the Sacramento Police Department.1 ECF No. 23 35 at 2. He alleges that defendant Thebeau arrested him in Kansas without a valid warrant and 24 transported him back to California to face criminal charges, and that he did so at the behest of the 25 26 1In my last order, I advised plaintiff that, if he declined to file a new amended complaint, I 27 would screen the latter of his most recent complaints. ECF No. 37. He has not filed a new amended complaint, and this action now proceeds on the complaint at ECF No. 35. 28 1 city and county.2 Id. at 4. He claims that, during transport, Thebeau refused to allow him to use 2 the bathroom, and he urinated on himself. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff’s claims against Thebeau for 3 refusing to allow him to use the restroom may proceed. All other claims and defendants should, 4 for the reasons stated below, be dismissed. 5 Screening Order 6 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 7 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 8 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 9 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 10 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 11 relief. Id. 12 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 14 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 15 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 16 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 17 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 18 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 19 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 20 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 21 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 22 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 23 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 24 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 25 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 26 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 27 2 Despite being named in the caption of the complaint, there do not appear to be any 28 claims made explicitly against defend LeRose 1 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 2 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 II. Analysis 4 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the validity of his arrest and the sufficiency of the warrant 5 are barred by the abstention doctrine in Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Abstention is 6 appropriate when: (1) the state court proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate 7 important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise 8 the constitutional claims. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 9 423, 432 (1982). Here, plaintiff indicates that state criminal proceedings are ongoing, ECF No. 10 35 at 8. Such proceedings implicate important state interests. People of State of Cal. v. Mesa, 11 813 F.2d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A [state’s] ability to protect its citizens from violence and 12 other breaches of the peace through enforcement of criminal laws is the centermost pillar of 13 sovereignty.”). And plaintiff has not offered no reason for this court to conclude that his claims 14 regarding the validity of his arrest cannot be raised in state court. Accordingly, I find it 15 appropriate to abstain from hearing those claims. 16 In contrast, plaintiff’s claim that defendant Thebeau prevented him from using the 17 bathroom during his transport states a potentially viable claim. Denying a pretrial detainee “the 18 minimal civilized measure[s] of life’s necessities,” can amount to a violation of his constitutional 19 rights. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). And this claim does not bear on the 20 validity of his arrest or of charges brought against him. It thus is not barred by Younger. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. This action proceeds based only on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim 23 against defendant Thebeau. 24 2. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a 25 copy of the April 14, 2023 complaint, one USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on 26 defendant Thebeau. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff must return the attached Notice 27 of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 form, and two 28 copies of the endorsed complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for 1 || service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants will be 2 || required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal 3 | Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 3. The findings and recommendations at ECF No. 30 are VACATED and 5 | WITHDRAWN. 6 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 9 | after service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 10 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to 11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed 12 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 13 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 14 | order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 15 || Cir. 1991). 16 ITIS SO ORDERED. 18 ( \ Oy — Dated: _ September 20, 2023 Q_——_ 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:21-cv-00713-DJC-JDP (PC) 7 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 8 v. 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit: 17 1 completed summons form 18 1 completed forms USM-285 19 2 copies of the April 14, 2023 complaint 20 21 22 _________________________________ 23 Plaintiff 24 Dated: 25 26 27 28