Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00169/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00169-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 999
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUAL A. ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY TREAT, et al,

Defendants.

CIV. S-05-0169 DFL PAN PS

 Findings and Recommendation

—NFN—

Plaintiff alleges that he was a state parolee when on May

12 or 13, 2004, he was arrested by Sacramento City Police for

rape but that charge was not pressed and instead he was detained

for violating his parole. Documents attached to the complaint

suggest that plaintiff waived a hearing and on May 28, 2004, a

decision was made to revoke his parole and return him to prison

for 12 months but that eventually the proceeding was dismissed

and he was released from custody September 11, 2004. The

arresting officers were apparently Tidwell and Hight. His parole

Case 2:05-cv-00169-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 05/25/05 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

1 As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve this matter, the hearing

scheduled before this court on May 25, 2005, is vacated.

2

officer was Quinton. Plaintiff sued the individuals and the

Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”). Plaintiff characterizes his

action as one presenting claims for false arrest and violation of

due process of law. The BPT, Quinton and Hight move to dismiss.1

Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part, that "(e)very

person who, under color of any statute of any state . . .,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.

. . ." 

Neither a state nor its officials acting in their

official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. Will v. Michigan

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Under the “arm of

the state” doctrine, a state agent or agency is immune from

federal suit under the Eleventh Amendment when in actuality the

state is the real, substantial party in interest. Ford Motor Co.

v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945). The

California Board of Prison Terms is an arm of the state of

California, is not a person for purposes of § 1983 liability and

is entitled to dismissal.

Federal due process requires that a parole be revoked

only by a procedure designed to ensure that the finding a

violation has occurred is factually correct and that the

Case 2:05-cv-00169-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 05/25/05 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

3

discretionary decision to return the person to prison is based on

an accurate assessment of the parolee’s behavior. Morrissey v.

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1982). To that end, shortly after a person

is arrested for a parole violation, a preliminary hearing must be

convened to determine if there is probable cause to believe he

has violated a condition of his parole. If probable cause is

established, within a reasonable time a neutral and detached body

must decide whether to revoke parole. The parolee must be

allowed opportunity to show he did not violate parole or there

were mitigating circumstances and if parole is revoked he is

entitled to a written statement of the evidence and the reasons

for revocation. Id.

A person "subjects" another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act

of 1871, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is

made. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege how Quinton

subjected plaintiff to violation of any federal due process

guarantee.

The Fourth Amendment permits an arrest without judicial

warrant only for an offense committed in the presence of the

arresting officer or for a felony the officer has probable cause

to believe the person has committed. U.S. v. Watson, 423 U.S.

411 (1976). 

Case 2:05-cv-00169-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 05/25/05 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

4

The complaint adequately states claims for relief against

the arresting officers including Hight.

For the foregoing reasons, (1) plaintiff’s claims against

the Board of Prison Terms should be dismissed with prejudice; (2)

plaintiff’s claim against Quinton should be dismissed with leave

to amend within 15 days; and (3) the motion to dismiss claims

against Hight should be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable David F. Levi, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 25, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00169-DFL-PAN Document 14 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 4