Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00470-2/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0470-EFB P 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE 

GRANTED 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he has filed an amended 

complaint which is now before the court for screening. 

 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). 

 In the first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was erroneously placed on parole, 

falsely imprisoned for purported parole violations, and subsequently appointed a public defender 

and discharged from parole due to this court error. ECF No. 7. In dismissing that complaint with 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 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 

27 

28 

2

leave to amend, the court informed plaintiff of the following: 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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). An 

individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish 

the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged 

constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 

1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff 

may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 679 (2009). He must identify the particular person or persons who violated 

his rights. He must also plead facts showing how that particular person was 

involved in the alleged violation. Here, plaintiff names approximately fifteen 

defendants, but none of those defendants are adequately linked to his claims. 

“The Constitution permits states to deprive a person of liberty as long as 

the person first receives due process. The fundamental requirement of due 

process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 

manner.” Stein v. Ryan, 662 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted). “[A]n individual has a liberty interest in being free from 

incarceration absent a criminal conviction.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 

668, 683 (9th Cir. 2001). “Thus, the loss of liberty caused by an individual’s 

mistaken incarceration after the lapse of a certain amount of time gives rise to a 

claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. Such a 

claim may arise when the defendants knew or should have known the detainee was 

entitled to release and (1) the circumstances indicated to the defendants that further 

investigation was warranted, or (2) the defendants denied the detainee access to the 

courts for an extended period of time. Id.; Rivera v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 

384, 391 (9th Cir. 2014). And “[s]ince imprisonment is punitive, officials who 

detain a person may violate that person’s rights under the Eighth Amendment if 

they act with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s liberty interest.” Id. at 1118. 

Plaintiff does not plead any facts showing that any named defendant knew 

or should have known that he should not have been placed on parole (or 

probation). He also fails to plead facts showing circumstances that should have 

prompted any defendant to investigate the propriety of his status as a parolee, or 

that he was denied access to the courts to challenge the propriety himself. Even if 

he had made such allegations, plaintiff still fails to state a procedural due process 

claim because he appears to have received the process that was due. He alleges 

that he was present in court when the judge ordered him to report to parole 

following his release. Thus, although the judge may have erred, plaintiff appears to 

have had a meaningful opportunity to be heard before being placed on parole. 

When his public defender realized the court’s error in October of 2013, plaintiff 

promptly appeared in court and was immediately discharged from parole. 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 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 

27 

28 

3

In addition, plaintiff cannot state a proper state law tort claim because he 

has not alleged compliance with the California Torts Claims Act, also known as 

the Government Claims Act or GCA. The GCA requires that a party seeking to 

recover money damages from a public entity or its employees submit a claim to 

the entity before filing suit in court, generally no later than six months after the 

cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945, 950.2 (emphasis 

added). Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement of the 

GCA but is an element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. 

Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007). Thus, when a plaintiff asserts a claim subject to 

the GCA, he must affirmatively allege compliance with the claim presentation 

procedure, or circumstances excusing such compliance, in his complaint. Id. The 

requirement that a plaintiff asserting claims subject to the GCA must affirmatively 

allege compliance with the claims filing requirement applies in federal court as 

well. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 

1988). Plaintiff concedes that he did not file a timely claim in accordance with the 

GCA. ECF No. 7 at 11-12. Thus, any purported state law claims must be 

dismissed. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint to allege a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support 

of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to 

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to 

file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the 

claims and allegations against each defendant. 

ECF No. 12 at 4-6. 

In the second amended complaint (ECF No. 18), plaintiff names Governor Brown as the 

sole defendant because “[h]e is legally responsible for the flawed laws her[e] in the State of 

California.” ECF No. 18 at 2. He again alleges that he should not have been placed on parole 

and was falsely imprisoned as a result. He also complains generally of prison overcrowding and 

inadequate medical and mental health care. The amended complaint fails to cure the defects 

identified in the court’s initial screening order because it fails to plead facts sufficient to support a 

due process claim based on the alleged court error and also fails to link the named defendant to 

the alleged deprivations of his rights. Moreover, prison overcrowding, by itself, is not a 

constitutional violation. Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 545 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994); 

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1249 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Despite notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff is 

unable to state a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, this action should be dismissed without 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 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 

27 

28 

4

further leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are 

only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not 

required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this action. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the second amended complaint (ECF 

No. 18) be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that the 

Clerk be directed to close the case. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

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

DATED: June 15, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 4