Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05236/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05236-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN GRAVES, a/k/a ARTHUR JOHN 

GRAVES, a/k/a JOHN HISLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD BROCKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05236-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 13

John Graves, an inmate at the Fresno County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. Graves’ application for appointment of counsel also is before the court for review.

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges that, approximately three years ago in 2015, plaintiff John Graves 

went to visit an address and was told “get off my property” by his sister, Willa Hisle, who cohabited 

with her boyfriend, Todd Mosely Brockman, an “ex-Monterey Co. Sheriff.” Docket No. 1 at 3. The 

complaint further alleges that Hisle and Brockman filed a false report and obtained a restraining 

order, which resulted in Graves being arrested for a probation violation. Graves contends that the 

actions of Hisle and Brockman violated his “right to freedom from persecution due to disability, and 

expression and or race, ‘creed,’ color.” Id. at 3 (errors in source). He also contends that, at about 

the same time in 2015, Hisle and Brockman violated his right to freedom of expression and speech 

by withholding his mail and telling him not to have his mail sent to their address. 

Case 3:18-cv-05236-SI Document 16 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks

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

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As relevant here, the court only has 

jurisdiction to entertain this action if it raises a federal question, such as a civil rights claim asserted 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (There are other federal statutes that grant other bases of federal court 

jurisdiction, but none are applicable to this action.) In simple terms, this action can go forward in 

federal court if a claim is stated under § 1983; if the complaint does not state a claim under § 1983, 

the plaintiff should pursue his claim in state court. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

A person acts under color of state law if he “exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of state 

law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” Id.

at 49 (quotation marks and citations omitted). The private actions of a public official are not, simply 

by virtue of that official’s governmental employ, accomplished under the color of state law. Johnson 

v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1997). “[P]urely private conduct, no matter how 

wrongful, is not within the protective orbit of section 1983.” Ouzts v. Maryland Nat. Ins. Co., 505 

F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974).

The complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983 because it fails to allege facts suggesting 

that any defendant was acting under the color of state law. Defendant Hisle was Graves’ sister and 

an optometrist by trade. See Docket No. 1 at 2, 3. Nothing in the complaint suggests she was acting 

Case 3:18-cv-05236-SI Document 16 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

under color of state law. Defendant Brockman was Hisle’s boyfriend and was a former Sheriff or 

Sheriff’s deputy. See id. at 2. Nothing in the complaint suggests that Brockman was acting under 

color of state law in doing the things he allegedly did. See generally Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 

92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996) (off-duty police officer who attacked plaintiffs was not acting under 

color of state law). Leave to amend will be granted so that Graves may attempt to allege facts 

showing that defendants acted under color of state law. 

If he can allege facts showing that a defendant acted under color of state law, Graves also 

must strive to allege facts in his amended complaint showing how defendants’ actions impermissibly 

discriminated against him and violated his right to freedom of speech. His conclusory allegations 

of discrimination and violation of his right to freedom of speech fail to state a plausible § 1983 

claim.

Graves has filed an application for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. 

Docket No. 12. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel 

to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on 

the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 

the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed 

together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional 

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. There is a very low 

likelihood of success on the merits in this action due to the apparent absence of state action. The 

application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 12.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint 

that complies with the directions in this order no later than February 4, 2019, and must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 

first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his 

claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

Case 3:18-cv-05236-SI Document 16 Filed 01/04/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a 

subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.") Failure to file the amended 

complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action. 

Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05236-SI Document 16 Filed 01/04/19 Page 4 of 4