Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01428/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01428-0/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 11cv1428 BTM (MDD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELMON DAVIS III,

CDCR # F-24440 Civil

No. 

11cv1428 BTM (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, [ECF No. 2]; 

(2) DISMISSING ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

L.S. McEWEN; JUDICIAL COUNCIL;

SUPERIOR COURT O.C.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and proceeding

pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has

filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of

whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 

Case 3:11-cv-01428-BTM-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 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 11cv1428 BTM (MDD)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also

obligate the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

In his Complaint, while not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to seek to hold liable the

California Judicial Council and the Orange County Superior Court for denying his Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. (See Compl. at 3.) However, neither of these Defendants are proper

parties pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and must be dismissed. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d

358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004). The Judicial Council is an agency of the State of California. Id. As

an agency of the State of California, the Judicial Council is not a “person” subject to suit and

is instead, entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages actions under the Eleventh

Amendment. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53-54 (1996)

As for Plaintiff’s attempts to name the Superior Court as a Defendant, these claims must

also be dismissed. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that “‘a losing party in state court is

barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a

United States District Court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself

Case 3:11-cv-01428-BTM-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 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 11cv1428 BTM (MDD)

violates the loser’s federal rights.’” Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 868 (1999).

Here, Plaintiff appears to be seeking, through this civil rights action, a reversal of the Superior

Court’s decision to deny his habeas corpus petition. The Court will not convert the present

action into a habeas petition due to the implications of the abuse of the writ doctrine. See

Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997)

Finally, Plaintiff names the Warden for Calipatria State Prison but it is not clear what

allegations Plaintiff is making against this Defendant. “T]he inquiry into causation must be

individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose

acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). Plaintiff

must allege personal acts by each individual Defendant which have a direct causal connection

to the constitutional violation at issue. See Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 483 (9th Cir.

1986). Here, there do not appear to be any factual allegations against Defendant McEwen that

relate to an alleged constitutional violation.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01428-BTM-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 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 11cv1428 BTM (MDD)

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted and for seeking monetary damages against immune

defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED

forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to file a First Amended

Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.

D.CAL. CIVLR. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended

Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987). 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a form civil rights Complaint to Plaintiff.

DATED: July 25, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01428-BTM-MDD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 Page 4 of 4