Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00008-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SHAULTON MITCHELL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

MS. GARCIA, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00008-REC-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOCS. 2, 8, 15)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

(DOC. 1)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner 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. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis, filed on January 3, 2006, February 8,

2006, and February 27, 2006.

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration and attachments that

make the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request

to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 11
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

 The statutory filing fee for all civil actions except applications for writs of habeas corpus is $250.00. 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a).

2

§ 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to

pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action.1 No

initial partial filing fee with be assessed by this order because

Plaintiff has no funds in his prison trust account. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the

appropriate agency to collect the filing fee in monthly payments

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to

Plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until

the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Screening the Complaint

A. Screening Standard

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 11
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

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

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

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 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

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 (9th Cir. 1981).

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.

Plaintiff seeks 1.3 million dollars for being in jail for no

reason from deputy public defender Ms. Garcia, who allegedly was

ineffective; Deputy District Attorney Ms. Howo, who allegedly

handled herself in a discriminatory manner in court; Officer

Compos, who testified that he contacted Plaintiff because of

Plaintiff’s race, and who allegedly detained Plaintiff for no

reason other than his race; and Judges Jane Cardozo and Gary S.

Austin, who allegedly allowed Plaintiff’s rights to be violated

in court. No additional facts are stated in the complaint.

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 11
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

B. Civil Rights

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed

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 (9th Cir. 1986).

Further, the statute plainly requires that there be an

actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants

and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by a plaintiff. 

See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit

has held that "[a] person 'subjects' another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if

he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative

acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

1. Defendants’ Conduct

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts to link

each of the named defendants with some affirmative act or

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 11
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

omission that resulted in an alleged deprivation of federally

protected rights. Further, with respect to Defendant Compos,

there is no allegation as to his office or status. 

2. Immunity for Arrest

Plaintiff asserts that his detention by Officer Compos was

based only upon his race. Plaintiff has not alleged that he

suffered any damage as a result of the detention. Further, if

Plaintiff seeks to recover for an arrest, it is established that

law enforcement officers are entitled to immunity from civil

damages liability for an assertedly wrongful arrest if a

reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause

existed to arrest the Plaintiff. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224,

227-28 (1991).

3. Judicial Immunity

Judges and officers whose functions bear a close association

to the judicial process are entitled to absolute judicial

immunity from damage actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for judicial

acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Demoran v.

Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156 (9th Cir. 1986). A judge loses judicial

immunity for judicial acts only when the judge acts in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction or performs an act that is not

judicial in nature. Shucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th

Cir. 1988). The factors relevant in determining whether an act is

judicial “relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether

it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the

expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the

judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,

356-357, 362 (1978). Judicial immunity is not lost by allegations

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 11
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

that a judge conspired with a third party. As long as the judge’s

ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s

subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986).

The allegations of the complaint before the Court establish

that the judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Plaintiff is complaining of actions or rulings made by the judges

in cases pending before the respective courts. The actions or

rulings made by the judges in connection with Plaintiff’s cases

to which the judges were assigned were within their jurisdiction.

4. Prosecutorial Immunity

Plaintiff appears to allege that a prosecutor is liable for

actions undertaken in the prosecutorial role. State prosecutors

are absolutely immune from civil liability for acts taken in

their official capacity that are closely associated with the

judicial process, such as initiating prosecution and presenting

the state’s case. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430-431

(1976); Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff states a conclusion that Defendant Howo handled herself

in a discriminatory manner against him in court. However,

Plaintiff does not state facts warranting a conclusion that the

prosecutor was acting outside her prosecutorial role.

5. Claims Relating to Convictions

Plaintiff states that an appeal is in effect. (Complt. at

3.) It is a reasonable inference from Plaintiff’s status as a

state prisoner and his statement that he has filed an appeal.

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his

custody, or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 11
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

him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of

habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young

v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct.

1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on

direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called

into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88

(1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488.

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking damages for a past

conviction, Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has been

reversed or expunged.

To the extent that Plaintiff may be complaining of the legal

effect of Defendants’ actions on the legality of his detention in

connection with any pending state court action, Plaintiff’s claim

would generally be more appropriately brought in a habeas corpus

proceeding. A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of

habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to

challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v.

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting, Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973);

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 11
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

8

2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge

the conditions of that confinement and obtain injunctive relief.

See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42, 111 S.Ct. 1737,

1741-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499, 93 S.Ct. at 1841;

Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

If Plaintiff is seeking this Court to intervene in the state

court criminal proceedings, Plaintiff is informed that generally

the federal writ of habeas corpus will not extend to one awaiting

trial unless special circumstances exist such that there is an

absence of state processes effective to protect a federal right.

See Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 245-254 (1886); Fay v. Noia,

372 U.S. 391, 420 (1963), overruled in part by Wainwright v.

Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) and Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722

(1991). Further, it is established that federal courts will not

interfere with pending state criminal proceedings unless the

petitioner has exhausted all state court remedies with respect to

the claim raised. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1311-

1312 (9th Cir. 1992).

6. State Action

In order to recover under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege and

prove that Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive

Plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal

statute. Karim-Panahi v.Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621,

623 (9th Cir. 1988). It is established that a public defender

does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s

traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 11
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

9

proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317, 325 (1981);

Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1985).

It appears that Ms. Garcia, Plaintiff’s public defender, was

performing a lawyer’s traditional function, namely,

representation of Plaintiff, in engaging in the conduct stated in

the complaint.

7. Plaintiff’s Letter

On January 17, 2006, there was filed a letter from Plaintiff

stating that he meant to sue entities other than the defendants

named in the complaint and asked for directions on how to correct

his mistake. In view of the fact that this Court is now

permitting Plaintiff to amend his complaint, Plaintiff’s request

stated in his letter is now moot. Plaintiff may amend his

complaint as he sees fit.

III. Amendment of the Complaint

In summary, because of the defects noted above, Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants. The

Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its

entirety. However, it is possible that Plaintiff can allege a set

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

claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to

cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to cure the

deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without

leave to amend.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 9 of 11
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

10

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.

In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in

the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of

$250.00 for this action; Plaintiff is not assessed an initial

partial filing fee; all fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this Court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections filed concurrently herewith;

and

3) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend;

and

4) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 10 of 11
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

11

of this order to file a first amended complaint that complies

with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of

Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number

assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint";

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in Plaintiff’s being considered to have failed

to state a claim and to have failed to comply with an order of

the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110; it will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00008-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 03/09/06 Page 11 of 11