(PC) Meeks v. Butte County Sheriff's Dept. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAI SERENE OPAL MEEKS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 14 BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO THIS ACTION DEPARTMENT AND BUTTE 15 COUNTY JUDICIAL TEAMS, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 Defendants. PAUPERIS 17 ECF No. 7 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 19 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 20 CLAIM 21 ECF No. 1 22 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 23 24 Plaintiff, who is awaiting trial in state court, alleges that her rights were violated during 25 her arrest when law enforcement failed to advise her of her Miranda rigthts. She also claims that 26 her arraignment in state court was untimely. These allegations must be dismissed under the 27 Younger abstention doctrine. I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 28 pauperis. 1 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a pro se litigant’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 5 The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is 6 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 7 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b). 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 2 II. Analysis 3 Plaintiff alleges that she was not given a Miranda warning at the time of her arrest and 4 that her arraignment on state criminal charges was untimely. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. She asks that the 5 charges pending against her be dismissed. Id. at 3. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in 6 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), a federal court is prohibited from enjoining ongoing state 7 criminal proceedings absent a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” 401 U.S. at 43-54. 8 Such circumstances exist only where “the threat to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights . . . 9 cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single criminal prosecution.” Id. at 46. Plaintiff 10 has not identified any reason why the issues that he wishes to raise in this court cannot be raised 11 in state court. 12 I find that leave to amend is unwarranted. This court must abstain from considering 13 plaintiff’s claims and nothing, short of changing the fundamentals of her allegations, could result 14 in a viable complaint. 15 It is ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 17 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 18 Further, I RECOMMEND that Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without 19 leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 20 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 21 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 22 these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. That 23 document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 24 The presiding district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1)(C). 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ July 18, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28