Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06977-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANE MYRON SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DALE BRADFORD LOHMAN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-06977-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 13 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se complaint that was dismissed with leave to 

amend. He has filed an amended complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

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). 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:16-cv-06977-PJH Document 14 Filed 02/17/17 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

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

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

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff seeks relief regarding his criminal conviction. 

“‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to 

imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the 

Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges 

to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of 

habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. 

Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his 

confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 

The original complaint was incomprehensible and the amended complaint remains 

quite confusing. Plaintiff states that he does not wish to proceed pursuant to either 

§ 2254 or § 1983. He argues that all judges, prosecutors, attorneys and clerks are 

operating in a fiduciary trustee capacity; therefore he can pursue a contract action. He 

Case 4:16-cv-06977-PJH Document 14 Filed 02/17/17 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

presents no case law to support this assertion. 

Plaintiff was convicted on several counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on 

a child under the age of 14 and he was sentenced to 100 years to life in state prison. 

Amended Complaint at 15; People v. Scott, H040175, 2014 WL 1597928 (Cal. Ct. App. 

April 21, 2014); People v. Scott, No. H024429, 2004 WL 2351590, (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 

2004). For relief in this case plaintiff seeks for his conviction to be voided because of due 

process violations. If plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction he must file a habeas 

petition after exhausting his state court remedies.1

To the extent he seeks 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). 

To the extent plaintiff names the prosecuting deputy district attorney as a 

defendant he is informed that a state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in "pursuing a criminal prosecution" 

insofar as he acts within his role as an "advocate for the State" and his actions are 

"intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Imbler v. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). But prosecutors are entitled only to qualified 

immunity when they perform investigatory or administrative functions, or are essentially 

functioning as police officers or detectives. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 

(1993). 

 

1 Court records indicate that plaintiff filed a habeas petition in this court that was denied. 

See Scott v. Galaza, Case No. 06-cv-2792-MMC. To proceed with a second or 

successive petition, plaintiff must obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A).

Case 4:16-cv-06977-PJH Document 14 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

no 

is d

an

cla

Da

\\can

Plaintif

further am

dismissed w

1. The

d the amen

2. This

aim. 

3. The

IT IS S

ated: Februa

ndoak.cand.circ9

ff’s allegatio

ount of am

without leav

e motions fo

nded compl

s action is D

e Clerk sha

SO ORDER

ary 17, 201

9.dcn\data\users

ons in this a

endment w

ve to amen

or an exten

aint is deem

DISMISSED

ll close this

RED. 

7 

\PJHALL\_psp\2

4

action are f

would cure t

d. 

CONCLU

sion and to

med timely 

D with preju

s case. 

2016\2016_06977

frivolous an

the deficien

USION 

o refile (Doc

filed and h

udice as friv

PH

Un

7_Scott_v_Lohm

nd fail to sta

ncies of the 

cket Nos. 1

has been re

volous and 

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

man_(PSP)\16-cv

ate a claim. 

complaint,

2, 13) are G

eviewed by 

for failure t

HAMILTON

s District Ju

v-06977-PJH-dis

 Because 

 this action

GRANTED

the court. 

to state a 

N

udge 

.docx

Case 4:16-cv-06977-PJH Document 14 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

D

D

Dis

pla

dep

rec

Da

Co

P.O

Sol

Da

DANE MYRO

v. 

DALE BRAD

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

acing said co

positing said

ceptacle loca

ane Myron S

rrectional Tr

O. Box 705 

ledad, CA 9

ated: Februar

ON SCOTT,

Plaintiff, 

DFORD LOH

Defendant.

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n February 1

opy(ies) in a 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

cott ID: T51

raining Faci

3960 

ry 17, 2017 

UNITED

NORTHER

,

HMAN, 

.

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

7, 2017, I SE

postage paid

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

1397

lity WA-341

5

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

ERVED a tr

d envelope a

Mail, or by pla

.

1

Su

Cl

By

K

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

rue and corre

addressed to 

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Kelly Collins,

Honorable PH

COURT 

IFORNIA 

16-cv-06977

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

ect copy(ies)

the person(s

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

, Deputy Cle

HYLLIS J. H

7-PJH 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

) of the attac

s) hereinafte

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

erk to the 

HAMILTON

erk, U.S. 

ched, by 

er listed, by 

ffice delivery

N

y

Case 4:16-cv-06977-PJH Document 14 Filed 02/17/17 Page 5 of 5