(PC) Kern v. Sacramento Police Dept. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES KERN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00560-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against the Sacramento Police Department and 22 several of its employees. ECF No. 10.1 I have reviewed plaintiff’s most recent complaint and 23 find, for the reasons stated below, that this court must abstain from considering plaintiff’s claims 24 because they implicate ongoing state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S 37, 43-44 25 (1971). I recommend that the complaint be dismissed on that basis. 26 27 1 This docket entry is labelled as plaintiff’s first amended complaint. It is, however, his second amended complaint. See ECF No. 8 (plaintiff’s actual first amended complaint). I will 28 direct the Clerk of Court to change the docket to reflect this. 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 5 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. Id. 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sacramento Police Department and four of its employees 3 violated his rights by illegally searching his residence, submitting false evidence against him in 4 his state criminal case, and arresting him even after the victim failed to pick him out of a lineup. 5 ECF No. 10 at 3. Plaintiff acknowledges that a criminal case related to these claims is ongoing. 6 Id. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal 7 courts must abstain from intervening in state proceedings where: (1) those proceedings are 8 pending at the time the federal case is filed; (2) the state court proceedings implicate important 9 state interests; and (3) the state court proceedings afford plaintiff an adequate opportunity to 10 litigate his federal constitutional challenges. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 11 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). Those factors are met here. As noted above, plaintiff’s state 12 criminal proceedings are ongoing. State criminal proceedings unquestionably implicate important 13 state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“This Court has recognized that 14 the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is 15 one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable 16 types of relief.”). And plaintiff has not indicated that there is any impediment to raising in state 17 court his claims regarding the legality of the search, the falsity of the evidence, or the strength of 18 the charges against him. Additionally, litigating plaintiff’s challenges to the evidence in this 19 court would plainly interfere with his state court proceedings, where parallel challenges might be 20 proceeding. 21 Federal courts must apply the Younger abstention doctrine except in extraordinary 22 circumstances, such as instances of bad faith, harassment, or malicious prosecution. Page v. 23 King, 932 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2019). No such extraordinary circumstances are alleged to be 24 present here. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 26 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 27 2. The Clerk of Court shall relabel the filing at ECF No. 10 as “Second Amended 28 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.” 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED pursuant to the 2 | abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 11 | v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ September 28, 2023 Q_——. 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28