Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01205/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01205-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re ROB J. SIMMONS.

 /

No. C 07-01205 CW

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

TO FILE AMENDED

PLEADING

On February 28, 2007, this case was opened when Plaintiff sent

a letter to this Court while housed in the San Mateo County Jail. 

On November 13, 2007, the Court construed Plaintiff’s letter as a

civil rights complaint and issued an Order Granting In Forma

Pauperis Status Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Dismissing Complaint with

Leave to Amend and Addressing Pending Motions (Docket # 13). In

the November 13, 2007 Order, the Court noted that, in his letter,

Plaintiff claimed that a San Mateo judge improperly found that

Plaintiff was incompetent to stand trial because the judge did not

believe that Plaintiff was a member of the ministry of Cannabis and

Rastari Inc. or that he had founded the Tree of Life Church. 

Plaintiff alleged that his religious rights had been violated and

that he had been incarcerated since July 17, 2006 without being

convicted of a crime.

In the November 13, 2007 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff

had not filed a complaint on the Court’s civil rights form and that

this would greatly assist the Court in clarifying the issues

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Plaintiff presented. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave

to file an amended complaint using the Court’s civil rights form. 

The Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff a blank civil rights form

along with a copy of the Order. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed three separate letters,

apparently in response to the November 13, 2007 Order. 

On December 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed the first letter which

he indicates is a habeas action. He alleges that, on November 24,

2007, he was driving in Santa Barbara when he almost ran out of

gas. He was in possession of his church’s “sacramental ganja.” 

Plaintiff asked a University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB)

police officer for directions to a gas station. The officer asked

Plaintiff if he was on probation. Plaintiff answered that he was. 

The officer then searched Plaintiff and arrested him. Plaintiff

was prosecuted for possession of marijuana for sale and

transportation of marijuana for sale. Plaintiff told the UCSB

police to call his doctor because he has a prescription for

marijuana, but the police refused to do so. Plaintiff claims that

he was wrongfully arrested and that he has been “jailed, harassed,

abused, tortured, kidnaped and robbed.” He wants an injunction to

protect members of the Tree of Life Church from wrongful arrest and

prosecution and he wants $200 million in damages. On the last page

of the letter, Plaintiff alleges that Santa Barbara County Deputy

Sheriff A. Kirsch improperly put Plaintiff into seclusion and

isolation.

On December 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed his second letter in

which he alleges that he is suing the San Mateo County Probation

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Department for holding him in violation of the First Amendment of

the United States Constitution and federal statutes. Plaintiff

alleges that he was wrongfully sent to Napa State Hospital and is

suing Mark Owens and Rafael Amezaga, Jr., the deputy public

defenders who represented him and who, against his wishes, filed a

motion alleging that he might be incompetent. Plaintiff also

alleges that, while he was out of jail on his own recognizance

(OR), he was remanded back to jail because he had a “dirty pee test

for marijuana.” He indicates that he wishes this case to be

“applied” to another case pending in Santa Barbara. He also

indicates that he is suing Judge Joseph Lodge and Dan Lieberman, an

aide to State Senator Dr. Leland Yee, but doesn't state how these

individuals violated his constitutional rights. 

On January 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a third letter in which he 

indicates that he is “requesting a habeas action” because UCSB

police stole money from him, illegally impounded his car and

illegally seized his “sacramental and medicinal marijuana.” He

requests an injunction for Multi-denominational Ministry of

Cannabis and Rastafari Inc. and Tree of Life Church members because

Defendants have repeatedly interfered with the church’s ministry

and members' freedom of religion. He requests “protection from

arrest, persecution, incarceration and theft of sacrament, amnesty

from sales, possession, transportation, growing, etc. to our sick

patients and church members.”

LEGAL STANDARD

Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for frivolousness prior to

service is appropriate where no legal interest is implicated, i.e.,

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

where a claim is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or is clearly lacking any factual basis. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106

(9th Cir. 1995). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff apparently wants to sue state officials in Santa

Barbara for violating his civil rights. He also claims his

constitutional rights were violated when he was found incompetent

to stand trial and held in a state psychiatric hospital.

I. Civil Rights Claims

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "provides a cause of action for the

'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v.

Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive

rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights

elsewhere conferred. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94

(1989). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda

County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under

section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. 

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person

deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of

section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in

another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is

legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the

plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v.

Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's

failure to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may be

basis for liability). Although the federal rules require brevity

in pleading, a complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants

“fair notice” of the claim and the “grounds upon which it rests.” 

Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

omitted). 

II. Heck v. Humphrey Requirement

In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

42 U.S.C. § 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-487 (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 487. Heck v. Humphrey applies to

detainees under an involuntary civil commitment. Huftile v.

Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005).

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

III. Habeas Petitions 

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21

(1975). 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA), a district court may grant a petition challenging a state

conviction or commitment on the basis of a claim that was

“adjudicated on the merits” in state court only if the state

court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d). The AEDPA requires a district court to presume correct

any determination of a factual issue made by a state court unless

the petitioner rebuts the presumption of correctness by clear and

convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 

Individuals in state custody who wish to challenge

collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or

length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a

fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The State's highest court must

be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is

discretionary. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). 

Plaintiff's three letters, which the Court assumes are his

attempts to file a first amended complaint, are not a proper

response to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s letters about events in

Santa Barbara are not relevant. Santa Barbara is in the Central

District of California and any action related to occurrences in

Santa Barbara must be brought in the Central District of

California.

If Plaintiff wishes to file a civil rights complaint about the

events in San Mateo or Napa County, he must file a complaint on the

civil rights complaint form the Clerk of the Court will send him

with this order. In the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff must

list each individual he wishes to sue. In the body of the

complaint, Plaintiff must specifically state the actions of each

individual Defendant who violated Plaintiff's civil rights. 

Plaintiff must also indicate which constitutional right was

violated by the actions of each Defendant. Plaintiff is advised to

write separate paragraphs for each Defendant indicating in each

paragraph that individual's actions and which constitutional rights

he or she violated. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that under Heck v. Humphrey, discussed

above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over any civil rights complaint

that would render his incompetence commitment invalid until the

commitment has been reversed on appeal or vacated pursuant to a

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

petition for writ of habeas corpus. If this was done, he must

explain that in his complaint.

If Plaintiff is able to file a civil rights complaint in this

Court that complies with this order, he must do so within thirty

days of the date of this order. If he does not do so within this

time, his complaint will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank civil

rights form along with a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/7/08 ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROB J SIMMONS,

 /

Case Number: CV07-01205 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on February 7, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Rob J. Simmons 697962 (with prisoner civil right complaint form)

4436 Callereal

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Dated: February 7, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-01205-CW Document 21 Filed 02/07/08 Page 9 of 9