Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02036/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02036-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeEARL FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALDANA RAMIREZ, 

Defendant.

No. 2:24-CV-2036-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was 

initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. 

Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that 

complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, 

Case 2:24-cv-02036-DJC-DMC Document 6 Filed 09/11/24 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

concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice 

of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 

1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail 

to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening 

required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. 

 In the current action, Plaintiff claims Defendant, who is a police officer for the 

City of Sacramento, lied during his criminal preliminary hearing. See ECF No. 1. This claim 

was first presented in Foster v. Ramirez, E. Dist. Cal. case no. 2:22-cv-1064-WBS-AC-P (Foster 

I). Foster I was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's order to 

resolve the fee status for the case. See ECF Nos. 7 and 8 in Foster I. Plaintiff sought 

reconsideration, which was denied. See ECF No. 11 in Foster I. In denying reconsideration, the 

District Judge noted, among other things, that re-opening the case would be futile because 

Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. See id. Plaintiff initiated the current action on July 

26, 2024. See ECF No. 1. 

 As the District Judge noted in Foster I, Plaintiff's claim does not appear to be 

cognizable. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is 

a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not 

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 

131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 

1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief 

alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s 

underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in 

imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not 

cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by 

habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-

Case 2:24-cv-02036-DJC-DMC Document 6 Filed 09/11/24 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

84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to 

malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding 

was concluded in plaintiff’s favor). 

 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ramirez provided false testimony during his 

criminal preliminary hearing. Success on this claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of any 

criminal conviction arising from the same proceedings. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to 

indicate that the conviction has been set aside or otherwise invalidated. Plaintiff will be provided 

an opportunity to amend. 

 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 

amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire 

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is 

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 

Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 

Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between 

each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 

(9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 

with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

Case 2:24-cv-02036-DJC-DMC Document 6 Filed 09/11/24 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

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s original complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

 2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of 

service of this order.

Dated: September 10, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02036-DJC-DMC Document 6 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 4