Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00477-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS )

KENNETH PEYTON, a.k.a. Ellis, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SCOTT SPIELMAN, )

Deputy District Attorney for the )

County of Kern, )

)

Defendant. )

 /

1:07-cv-0477-OWW- NEW (TAG)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

FORWARD SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT 

Plaintiff Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with a

civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Kern County Deputy District Attorney

Scott Spielman (“ADA Spielman”). The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that ADA Spielman knew, or should have known, based on a

pre-trial motion and the attendant hearing, which he witnessed, that the investigating police

detective provided false and misleading evidence, and suborned perjury, to ensure that criminal

charges would be brought against Plaintiff. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff contends that, despite his

knowledge of the fabricated evidence, ADA Spielman did not dismiss the charges, but, instead,

elected to continue his prosecution of Plaintiff. (Doc. 1). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s “Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner,”

wherein he reports no income and an average trust account balance of $23.38 at Kern County

Sheriff’s Detention Facility, satisfies the indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and

that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of commencing this action. See Pitts v. Delaware, Slip

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 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

2

Copy, 2005 WL 1806434 (D. Del. 2005)($600 per month in disability benefits satisfies section

1915(a)); D’Alessandro v. Brann & Isaacson, Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1642582 (D. Del.

2005)($1,250 per month in disability benefits satisfies section 1915(a)); Calhoun v. Health &

Human Services, 844 F. Supp. 1338, 1339 (E.D. Wisc. 1994)($316 per month of assistance

benefits and food stamps satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)).

Having concluded that Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis under section

1915(a)(1), this Court must still “screen” plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),

which requires the dismissal of a case at any time if the court determines that it (1) “is frivolous

or malicious,” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3) “seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii), and (iii). 

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal

conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous

if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. Id. The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the Court to determine whether

the applicant is proceeding in good faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46, 

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n.1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is

most commonly found in repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be inferred to be malicious if it suggests

an intent to vex the defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims decided in

prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or

contains disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains untrue material allegations of

fact or false statements made with knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v.

Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

Here, the thrust of Plaintiff’s complaint is that ADA Spielman, despite his knowledge that

fabricated evidence was used to wrongfully charge Plaintiff with a crime, refused to dismiss the

charges. According to Plaintiff, ADA Spielman’s act, or failure to act, resulted in Plaintiff’s

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 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

3

continued incarceration, in violation of his rights to due process. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks, inter

alia, injunctive relief enjoining the prosecution from proceeding, punitive damages, and attorneys

fees. (Doc. 1).

The Civil Rights Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person with 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 in an action at law, suit

in equity, or other proper proceeding to redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff’s claim against ADA Spielman alleges a due process violation. The claims are

neither frivolous nor malicious. As to whether plaintiff’s complaint states a claim on which

relief may be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the

court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a

complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable legal

theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v.

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6th Cir. 1998). In reviewing a complaint

under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se

pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 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 The statutory filing fee for all civil actions except applications for writs of habeas corpus is $350.00. See 1

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

4

447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Moreover, although prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages for

activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995 (1976), this immunity does not extend to actions

seeking injunctive relief. See Pullman v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-542 (1984) (claim against a

state court judge); Altman v. Kelly, 28 F.Supp.2d 50, 53 (D.Mass. 1998) (acknowledging that

plaintiffs could seek equitable relief in action against district attorneys but dismissing case on

other grounds). 

Under the above-mentioned standard, this Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a

cognizable section 1983 claim against defendant ADA Spielman. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that

I. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(A) Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) IS GRANTED;. 

(B) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory

filing fee of $350.00 for this action. This order assesses an initial partial filing fee of $3.00. 1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be

collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the

amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2); and

(C) The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this Court’s order to the Kern

County Sheriff’s Department, filed concurrently herewith.

II. Service of the Complaint

(A) Directions to the Clerk and to Plaintiff 

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a USM-285 form and a summons for

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 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

5

each of the named defendants, along with an instruction sheet, a notice of submission of

documents, and a copy of the complaint filed in this Court. 

(2) Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court

with the following documents:

a. Completed summonses;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each of the named defendants; and 

c. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed in this Court. 

Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this

action and/or the defendants named therein for failure to obey this Court’s order. Local

Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 04/27/07 Page 5 of 5