Orozco v. United States ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VICTOR MANUEL OROZCO, 11 Case No. 22-cv-07369 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH v. LEAVE TO AMEND 13 14 UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently confined at the Monterey County Jail in Salinas, 19 filed a letter on November 22, 2022, complaining of jail conditions at the Santa Cruz 20 County Jail and seeking his release and monetary damages. Dkt. No. 1. This letter was 21 construed as an attempt to file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the 22 same day, the Clerk sent him a copy of the court form and instructions to file a response 23 twenty-eight days. Dkt. No. 3. 24 On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming various individuals at the 25 Santa Cruz County Jail. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Then on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed another 26 packet of papers which was docketed as a “complaint.” Dkt. No. 12. The Court now 27 conducts an initial review of these papers. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 9 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 11 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 12 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 13 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 15 Plaintiff names the following as Defendants in this action: A. Ocompo, J. Wooley, 16 Sgt. Enrico, L. Schumacher, L. Madrigal, C. Walker, L. Vizcara, A. Ward, Dr. Ho. Dkt. 17 No. 6 at 2. Plaintiff indicates these Defendants are “CO’s at Santa Cruz Co. Jail.” Id. 18 Under the statement of claim, Plaintiff states the following: “cruel and unusual 19 punishment, conflicked of interest, negligence, ass[a]ults, battery, false arrest, abuse of 20 process, intentional inflickstion of emotional distress, damages, loss to personal property, 21 negligence claim, duty, breech of contract, causation, mental anguish, depervation of rights 22 [sic].” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff seeks compensation for injuries and damages, as well as 23 attorney fees, release from jail, and acquittal of all charges. Id. at 3. 24 There are several problems with this complaint. First of all, Plaintiff merely 25 provides a list of causes of action with no facts in support. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to 26 explain how each named Defendant acted in such a way to cause him injury. In sum, 1 1983 against any named Defendant. See West, 487 U.S. at 48. Furthermore, the additional 2 papers that Plaintiff filed subsequently do not cure this deficiency. Dkt. No. 12. These 3 papers are simply copies of state regulations1 and an “Overview of [Federal] Civil Rights 4 Litigation” obtained through Westlaw. Id. However, these papers contain no statement of 5 facts to support any claim against the named Defendants. Id. 6 There is also a problem with the type of relief Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff refers to a 7 false arrest and seeks release from jail. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to 8 particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 9 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An 10 inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought 11 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks 12 “‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 13 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. 14 Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser 15 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not 16 ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 17 562 U.S. at 533-34 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). Accordingly, if Plaintiff seeks to 18 be released from jail, he must file a habeas petition. However, it appears that Plaintiff’s 19 state criminal proceedings may be ongoing and that he has not yet been convicted. To the 20 extent that Plaintiff seeks federal intervention, the Court will not interfere with ongoing 21 state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 22 circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). 23 Plaintiff shall be granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the 24 deficiencies discussed above. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a 25 26 1 Plaintiff has simply signed his name throughout in the spaces provided where templates 1 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 2 “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice 3 of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 4 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right 5 to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553- 6 56 (2007) (citations omitted). To state a claim that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff must 7 allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 8 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Liability 9 may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 only if Plaintiff can show that 10 the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer 11 v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a 12 constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 13 participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 14 required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complaints. See Leer, 844 15 F.2d at 633. 16 17 CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 19 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 20 (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint to correct 21 the deficiencies described above. The amended complaint must include the caption and 22 civil case number used in this order, Case No. 22-cv-07369 BLF (PR), and the words 23 “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff 24 must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. The amended 25 complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. 26 Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, 1 |} named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 2 || F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 3 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided 4 || will result in the dismissal with prejudice of this action for failure to state a claim, 5 || without further notice to Plaintiff. 6 3. In a separate order, the Court has granted Plaintiff an extension of time to 7 || file supporting documents to complete his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis g || CIFP”). Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to resolve the matter of the filing fee, either by g || filing a complete IFP application or paying the full filing fee in the time provided, this 10 || action will also be subject to dismissal on that basis. 11 4. The Clerk shall correct Docket No. 12 to indicate that it is a “Supplemental 2 Complaint” rather than “Complaint.” E 13 5. Defendant “United States” is DISMISSED from this action as Plaintiff is S 14 || suing employees of the Santa Cruz County Jail. The Clerk shall terminate “United States” 3 15 || from this action. 16 6. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 5 17 this order to Plaintiff. 5 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: — March 29,2023 fouinfhacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 | ee se 26 27