Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY PROBATION )

DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1111-AWI-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(DOC. 5) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

I. Screening the Complaint

A. Legal Standards

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 The Court will screen the complaint and any amended complaint that is filed and will issue an order 1

determining that claims against specific defendants have been stated before the Court will direct that the complaint

be served on any defendant.

2

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and

state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. th

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6 Cir. 1998). th

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff sues two probation officers, Officer Rufugio Lopez

and Officer Gordon Dahlberg. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2006

the two officers violated his Fifth Amendment right to due

process of law by arresting him for a violation of probation for

his not having been enrolled in an anger management program; he

alleges that he had received notice of an appointment with

Officer Lopez to receive the officer’s approval to enroll in the

anger management program, and that such approval was required

before he could begin the progam, but he was arrested for not

being enrolled before the date for that appointment ever came

about. Plaintiff alleges that this resulted in false arrest, a

violation of probation, and his being in custody in the county

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

jail for about sixty to sixty-four days. He seeks damages in the

total amount of $304,000.00 for loss of freedom, mental anguish,

and related damages concerning a real estate refinancing loan

that he did not receive because he could not complete the

transaction while in custody, including foreclosure fees.

Plaintiff does not seek any other type of relief.

C. Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law]...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States... to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution... shall be liable to the party injured in

an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986).

In seeking damages for what Plaintiff clearly alleges to

have been a wrongful violation of probation, Plaintiff is

necessarily still claiming that the entire basis for his

probation violation was invalid and thus that the violation

itself was invalid. The validity of the revocation of probation

is implicated by Plaintiff’s challenge. Plaintiff’s civil claim

for damages thus amounts to a collateral attack on his probation

violation and subsequent incarceration. Such an attack is not

permitted by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, and Edwards

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-48 (1997); Butterfield v. Bail, 120

F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9 Cir. 1997) (challenge to the procedures th

used to deny parole eligibility held necessarily to implicate the

validity of the denial of parole and thus of confinement and to

require habeas corpus); see, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,

80-81 (2005) (noting the importance of determining whether or not

a successful § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity

of the sentence or the duration or fact of the plaintiff’s

confinement). 

Plaintiff seeks only damages. Plaintiff was previously

informed in the Court’s order dismissing his complaint with leave

to amend of the limitation on his claim presented by Butterfield

and Wilkinson v. Dotson. Plaintiff has thus had an opportunity to

file an amended complaint alleging facts that would not

necessarily imply the invalidity of his parole revocation, and he

has failed to allege any such facts. Considering the nature of

Plaintiff’s claim and the type of relief requested, it does not

appear possible that Plaintiff could allege facts that would

change the conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim is precluded by

Heck, Balisok, and Wilkinson v. Dotson. Another opportunity to

amend his complaint would appear to be futile. Plaintiff’s civil

rights claim for the relief sought does not accrue unless and

until the probation violation is reversed, expunged, or otherwise

invalidated.

II. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint BE

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 11/02/06 Page 7 of 7