Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01249/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01249-0/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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEVIN LEE McCULLOM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEAN WHENT, et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-1249-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint is now before 

the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

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

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II 

Plaintiff alleges that police officers conducted an illegal 

search and other illegal acts that led to his arrest. 

In order to recover damages for an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm 

caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or 

sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 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. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages 

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has 

not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 

487. 

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court 

should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 

granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). 

Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal 

prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or 

harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

"flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 

prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and 

inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special 

circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal 

court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every 

"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is 

applied). 

Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary 

circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in federal court 

does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer 

irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. 

Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 

401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by 

reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 

(1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of 

honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. See 

Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 713 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that several police officers falsified 

police reports, committed perjury, and lied to a magistrate judge 

in order to get a search warrant which led to his arrest. For 

relief in this action, Plaintiff seeks the police officers to be 

fired and charged with federal crimes and he seeks four million 

dollars in damages. Plaintiff is currently being held in Santa 

Rita County Jail. It is not clear if the criminal prosecution is 

ongoing or if he has already been convicted. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide 

more information. If Plaintiff has been convicted he must show 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Heck. If the 

prosecution is ongoing Plaintiff must discuss why Younger 

abstention is not appropriate to the extent he seeks this Court 

to intervene. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must state clearly 

how each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated 

Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 

634. The pleading must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must 

file all of his claims in one complaint and not present them 

piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other documents. 

Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within twentyeight days of this order will result in the dismissal of this 

action. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/25/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\McCullom1249.dwlta.docx

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 5