Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01430/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01430-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07cv1430-dismissSAC.wpd -1- 07cv1430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KWESI KHARY MUHAMMAD,

CDCR #P-84376, Civil No. 07-1430 IEG (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

AND § 1915A(b)(1).

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEP’T, et al.,

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California State

Prison located in Vacaville, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before this Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, he filed a First

Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a) [Doc. No. 3]. In addition, Plaintiff filed

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP on November 2, 2007 but sua sponte

dismissed his First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A.

Case 3:07-cv-01430-IEG-PCL Document 7 Filed 02/05/08 Page 1 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07cv1430-dismissSAC.wpd -2- 07cv1430

 The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in order to

correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court in the November 2 Order. On

December 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

II. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)

obligates 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) and § 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte

dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A; Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but

requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). 

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A now mandate that the court

reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting

service of the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). See Calhoun,

254 F.3d at 845; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,

604-05 (6th Cir. 1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur

“before service of process is made on the opposing parties”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

Case 3:07-cv-01430-IEG-PCL Document 7 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07cv1430-dismissSAC.wpd -3- 07cv1430

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”); Andrews, 398 F.3d at

1121. In addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), which is “particularly

important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). In

giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, however, the court may not

“supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 2122

(2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

In Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, his sole claim is that an unnamed Sheriff’s

Deputy violated his Eighth Amendment rights by imposing “excessive bail” when he was

arrested in 2003. (SAC at 3.) As the Ninth Circuit has recently stated, “the opening clause of

the Eighth Amendment, ‘[e]xcessive bail shall not be required,’ is one of the least litigated

provisions in the Bill of Rights. Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 659 (9th Cir.

2007). 

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that an unnamed Sheriff Deputy

“unlawfully set the bail amount” for Plaintiff’s misdemeanor arrest at $80,000 when instead, it

should have been set at $500.00. (SAC at 5.) To determine whether Plaintiff has alleged facts

sufficient to state a claim regarding the violation of the Excessive Bail clause, “we look to the

valid state interests bail is intended to serve for a particular individual and judge whether bail

conditions are excessive for the purpose of achieving those interests.” See Galen, 477 F.3d at

660.

Case 3:07-cv-01430-IEG-PCL Document 7 Filed 02/05/08 Page 3 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07cv1430-dismissSAC.wpd -4- 07cv1430

Here, Plaintiff sets forth no facts with regard to the nature of the hearing at which bail

was actually determined. In California, bail determinations are regulated by a “comprehensive

statutory scheme” and it is required that there is open hearing where bail is set by a judicial

officer. Id. Moreover, the Plaintiff has alleged no facts from which the Court could find a

connection between the actions of this unnamed Sheriff Deputy and the judicial officer who

ultimately set Plaintiff’s bail at an amount he claims to be excessive. Plaintiff must allege facts

sufficient to show that the named Defendant was the actual cause of the alleged constitutional

violation. “The 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 facts to show that a judicial officer “enhanced his bail for purposes

unauthorized by California law or that the amount of bail was excessive in light of the valid

purposes for which it was set.” Galen, 477 F.3d at 661. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts with

regard to these esssential elements. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment excessive bail claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

See 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)(1).

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty

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

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. Civ. L. R. 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). Further, if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter

Case 3:07-cv-01430-IEG-PCL Document 7 Filed 02/05/08 Page 4 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07cv1430-dismissSAC.wpd -5- 07cv1430

be counted as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-

79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a form § 1983 Complaint to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 5, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01430-IEG-PCL Document 7 Filed 02/05/08 Page 5 of 5