Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00075/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00075-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

RICHARD ACORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY WELFARE

INVESTIGATOR RICHARD MEYERS,

et.al.

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-0075 REC DLB P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint filed

January 19, 2005.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against Kings County Welfare Investigation

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Unit Investigator Richard Meyers and Kings County District Attorney Ronald Calhoun. Plaintiff

alleges that he was improperly arrested for Welfare Fraud despite his meeting with defendant

Meyers and providing evidence of his innocence. Plaintiff alleges that the charges were

ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had in their

possession documents which clearly showed plaintiff’s innocence and violated his civil rights by

issuing a warrant without probable cause, placing him under arrest and falsely charging him with

a crime.

A. Kings County District Attorney as a Defendant.

Plaintiff is advised that prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages

under section 1983 which challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of

criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Because plaintiff’s allegations

relate to the district attorney’s actions in performing functions intimately associated with the

judicial phase of the criminal process, plaintiff’s claim against the Kings County District

Attorney Ronald Calhoun must be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. Id.; see

Stevens v. Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). 

B. Malicious Prosecution Claim. 

“In order to prevail on a § 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff ‘must show

that the defendants prosecuted [him] with malice and without probable cause, and that they did

so for the purpose of denying [him] equal protection or another specific constitutional right.’” 

Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, No. 02-57118, 2004 WL 1118726 (9th Cir. May 20, 2004) (citing

to Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 1995)). “Malicious prosecution

actions are not limited to suits against prosecutors but may be brought . . . against other persons

who have wrongfully caused the charges to be filed.” Awabdy, 2004 WL 1118726 (citations

omitted). “An individual seeking to bring a malicious prosecution claim must generally establish

that the prior proceedings terminated in such a manner as to indicate his innocence.” Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Meyers caused charges to be filed against him despite

having possession of information showing his innocence. These allegations are insufficient to

state a cognizable claim for malicious prosecution under section 1983. Plaintiff makes no

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 4
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

allegation of malice or improper purpose on the part of defendant Meyers. It is also not clear

from plaintiff’s complaint what role defendant played in the arrest, if any. Plaintiff alleges that

he met with defendant Meyers fourteen (14) months prior to his arrest and Meyers believed he

was innocent. Plaintiff further alleges that Myers stated that he would report this to the District

Attorney. Plaintiff fails to describe what further involvement, if any, Meyers had in the arrest. In

order to state a cognizable claim for malicious prosecution against defendant Meyers, plaintiff

must allege facts indicating that Meyers caused him to be arrested and did so with an improper

purpose. 

Because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against defendant Meyers and it

appears that defendant Ronald Calhoun is entitled to immunity, the Count finds it necessary to

dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court will however grant plaintiff the opportunity to

file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order if he believes he can

state a cognizable claim against one or both of these defendants. Failure to cure the deficiencies

will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

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

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 complaint is dismissed; 

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 4
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

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, 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 "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and

failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

9b0hie UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 4 of 4