(PC) Giles v. Sacramento County D. A.'s Office ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER GILES, No. 2:23-cv-1334 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed a complaint but failed to 18 pay the court’s filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 1, 2023, 19 plaintiff was granted leave to remedy such deficiency; on August 10, 2023, plaintiff filed an 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis and trust account statement. As set forth below, 21 plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred pending plaintiff’s election in response 22 to this court order.1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). 23 Screening Standards 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 26 1 The court’s filing fee is $350.00 plus a $52.00 administrative fee. If leave to file in forma 27 pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not required to pay the $52.00 28 administrative fee. 1 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 2 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 3 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 5 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 6 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 9 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 10 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 11 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 12 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 13 1227. 14 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 15 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 16 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 17 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 18 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 19 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 20 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 21 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 23 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 24 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 25 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 26 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 27 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 28 //// 1 The Civil Rights Act 2 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 3 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 4 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 5 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 6 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 7 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 8 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 9 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 10 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 11 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 12 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including 13 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, 14 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 15 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 Discussion 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury, property damages or wrongful death, and it 18 is filed on the state court’s complaint form. In addition, the complaint is addressed to the 19 Sacramento County Superior Court, 720 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Therefore, it is 20 possible that plaintiff may have mailed the complaint to the wrong court. 21 Further, the complaint fails to set forth specific facts as to what each defendant did or did 22 not do that violated plaintiff’s rights. Specifically, plaintiff fails to include any facts supporting a 23 civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Indeed, plaintiff marked the boxes “motor vehicle,” 24 “general negligence,” and “products liability,” which are not properly raised in a federal civil 25 rights action. Most claims raised under the Eighth Amendment require that a prisoner identify 26 specific acts taken by each defendant that demonstrates he or she was deliberately indifferent, not 27 merely negligent. It appears that plaintiff’s claims are more appropriately brought in state court 28 rather than federal court. 1 Also, plaintiff names the “Sacramento DA’s Office” as defendants. Prosecutors are 2 absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which challenge activities related to 3 the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 4 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor’s actions are immunized requires a functional 5 analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation underlying them, 6 determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) 7 (en banc). The prosecutor’s quasi-judicial functions, rather than administrative or investigative 8 functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of malicious prosecution, falsification of 9 evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment of exculpatory evidence will be 10 dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Stevens v. Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 728 11 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 12 Plaintiff also names Patricia Millsaps as a defendant but fails to identify where she works 13 or what she did or did not do that allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights. 14 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 15 unable to determine whether plaintiff intended this complaint to be filed in this court as opposed 16 to state court, and whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 17 Nevertheless, the court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement 18 as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 19 policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 20 succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 21 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 22 support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. However, the court will grant plaintiff an 24 opportunity to either voluntarily dismiss this action or file an amended complaint on this court’s 25 form. 26 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 27 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 28 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 1 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 2 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 3 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 4 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 5 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 6 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 7 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 8 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 9 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 10 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 11 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 12 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 13 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 14 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 15 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 18 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 19 Notice of Election. If amending, plaintiff shall submit the following documents to the court: 20 a. The completed Notice of Election;2 and 21 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 24 also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 25 Failure to file a response to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 26 dismissed. 27 28 2 If plaintiff opts to voluntarily dismiss this action, he will not incur the $350.00 filing fee. 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing an amended 2 || complaint. 3 || Dated: September 26, 2023 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 || igile1334.clo 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHER GILES, No. 2:23-cv-1334 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT 14 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows: 17 _____________ Amend the Complaint (amended complaint appended) 18 OR 19 _____________ Plaintiff opts to voluntarily dismiss the complaint and 20 pursue his claims in state court. 21 22 DATED: 23 ________________________________ 24 Plaintiff 25 26 27 28