Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00337/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00337-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL GRAY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0337 GEB GGH P

vs.

ALBERT NAJERA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These payments shall be collected and

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

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).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts 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, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 

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

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee in the Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff is

representing himself in the criminal proceedings. Plaintiff generally alleges that he has been

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

denied the ability to effectively defend himself. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive

relief in connection with these claims.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), an Indiana state

prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county

officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the

investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial

(“illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter

charges, and serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from

custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the

complaint and held that:

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,

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. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

Plaintiff’s claims for money damages on grounds that he has been denied the

ability to effectively defend himself are barred by Heck v. Humphrey. See Harvey v. Waldron,

210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000)(Heck applies to pending criminal charges; a claim, that if

successful would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction in a pending criminal

prosecution, does not accrue so long as the potential for a conviction in the pending criminal

prosecution continues to exist). 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order directing that the

criminal charges against him be dismissed. When a plaintiff seeks relief in federal court that

would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding, the federal action must be dismissed

pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971) if the state proceeding: 1) is

ongoing; 2) implicates important state interests; and 3) provides that plaintiff has an adequate

opportunity to litigate the federal claims. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268

F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). The court finds that plaintiff’s claims meet these requirements. 

Accordingly, these claims should be dismissed.

The complaint contains a claim that does not concern the ongoing criminal

proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked on three separate occasions and that police

officers failed to protect him. Plaintiff does not identify any of the individual officers who failed

to protect him. Nor does plaintiff describe these incidents in any detail. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Because plaintiff has failed to identify any of the officers who failed to protect

him, the court finds that he has failed to state a colorable claim. In addition, as indicated above,

plaintiff must describe the incidents and the conduct of the officers on which he bases his claim

in order for the court to determine whether he has stated a colorable Eighth Amendment claim.

Also named as defendants are the Sacramento Police Department and the

Sacramento Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff may be claiming that one of these two municipal

entities is responsible for the attacks. To state a colorable claim for municipal liability, plaintiff

must allege that the Sheriff’s Department or the Police Department had a deliberate policy,

custom or practice that was the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation he suffered. 

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978). Plaintiff

does not allege that the attacks occurred as a result of a policy, custom or practice of the Police

Department of Sheriff’s Department. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff files an amended

complaint, he should not include his claims challenging the validity of his ongoing criminal

proceedings. Plaintiff may amend his claims challenging the conditions of his confinement, i.e.

the failure of defendants to protect him from harm by other inmates. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Department filed concurrently herewith.

3. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file

an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an

amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 3/14/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gray337.b

Case 2:07-cv-00337-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 6