Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00298/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00298-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Michael Bird is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. This action was removed from the Madera County Superior Court to this Court on February 25, 

2015. 

On May 4, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, motion to severe and separate 

Defendants, and request for entry of default. (ECF No. 18.) 

On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff seeks a ruling on his request for monetary damages, request to 

disqualify the Deputy Attorney General, and request to terminate employment of Mayhew and 

Curtice. (ECF No. 21.) 

Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under California Penal Code sections 147 and 422.7 is 

unfounded. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has failed to prove liability in this action, there is 

no basis to award sanctions against either Defendant Mayhew or Curtice because there is no private 

MICHAEL BIRD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD MAYHEW,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00298-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR RULING ON APRIL 2, 2015, MOTION TO 

REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT

[ECF Nos. 13, 21]

Case 1:15-cv-00298-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

right of action under California Penal Code sections 147 and 422.7.1 Plaintiff may not sue Defendants 

for violations of the California Penal Code. See Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283-286 

(2002) (basing a claim on an implied private right of action requires a showing that the statute both 

contains explicit rights creating terms and manifests an intent to create a private remedy); see also

Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action for 

violation of criminal statutes). Furthermore, there is no legal basis for Plaintiff to seek employment 

termination of any Defendant in this action, by way of a section 1983 complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request to disqualify the assigned Deputy Attorney General is likewise unfounded. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants through the filing of Deputy Attorney General conspired to make 

unqualified statements under California Penal Code section 368(b).2 Again, as previously stated, there 

is no private right of action under California Penal Code section 368(b). Even if Plaintiff has standing 

to raise a challenge to disqualify opposing counsel, Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The State of 

California has a mandatory duty to represent the State and any state officer acting in an official 

capacity. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12512 (“The Attorney General shall . . . defend all causes to which 

the State, or any State officer is a party in his official capacity ....”). Thus, the State is entitled to 

defend any of its employees who have been sued for acts within the scope of their employment and 

request legal representation. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 995 (providing that “upon request of an employee 

or former employee, a public entity shall provide for the defense of any civil action or proceeding 

brought against him ... on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an 

employee of the public entity.”) The fact that the assigned Deputy Attorney General removed this 

action from state court to this Court (albeit lawfully) clearly does not provide a basis to disqualify such 

counsel. 

///

///

 

1

California Penal Code section 147 states: “Every officer who is guilty of willful inhumanity or oppression toward any 

prisoner under his care or in his custody, is punishable by fine not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000), and by 

removal from office.” California Penal Code section 422.7 lists aggravating factors for punishment. 

2

California Penal Code section 367 outlines crime elder or dependent adults. 

Case 1:15-cv-00298-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for monetary damages under California Penal Code sections 147 and 

422.7 is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for termination of Defendants’ employment is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for disqualification of the assigned Deputy Attorney General is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00298-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 3