Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00413-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ, No. CIV.S-06-0413 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

POLICE OFFICER MICHELL, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BADGE 0533, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. By prior order the court

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has

now filed an amended complaint.

As the court previously advised plaintiff, the in forma

pauperis statute authorizes the court to dismiss a case if the court

determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff’s difficult to decipher amended complaint is

subject to dismissal under these standards. Liberally construed,

plaintiff’s amended complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The named defendants, similar to the initial complaint, are

four officers of the Sacramento Police Department. The amended

complaint again refers to an incident on September 10, 2001, during

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 6
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

which one Roneld Moore allegedly assaulted plaintiff. Again,

however, no specific conduct is attributed to the named defendants. 

In this regard, the amended complaint simply asserts that plaintiff

was arrested in connection with the assault as a result of “a

conspiracy to cover up prior fake arrest[s] and to stop me from

continuing prior civil complaints.” (Am. Compl. at 4.) The amended

complaint again alleges that plaintiff was arrested, charged and

convicted of violating California Penal Code § 245 (assault with a

deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury), and

spent a total of “approximately over 17 months” in the county jail.

The amended complaint does not allege how the conduct

complained of has resulted in a deprivation of a right, privilege or

immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person

acting under color of state law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120

(9th Cir. 1992); Lopez v. Dept. of Health Serv., 939 F.2d 881, 883

(9th Cir. 1991). The Civil Rights Act provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen

of the United States ... to the deprivation of

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the

deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode,

423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 6
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

 California’s personal injury statute of limitations applicable 1

to § 1983 actions changed from one year to two years effective

January 1, 2003. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. However, given

the date of the alleged incident, this change in the law is not an

issue in the instant case.

4

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 (9th Cir. 1978). No such connection or link

between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to

have been suffered by plaintiff is alleged. 

The amended complaint also refers to state tort claims for

false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional

distress and malicious prosecution. These state law claims by

themselves are insufficient to confer federal subject matter

jurisdiction and, standing alone, would more appropriately be pursued

in state court.

To the extent plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks appellate

review of the state court criminal proceedings in which plaintiff was

involved, plaintiff again is advised that a federal district court

does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state court decisions. 

Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923).

Additionally, the events alleged in the complaint allegedly

occurred in 2001, more than four years prior to the filing of the

complaint. Therefore, any § 1983 cause of action likely would be

barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. See Fink 1

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999)(statute of limitations

for § 1983 claim is governed by period set forth in state tort law

for personal injury actions).

The undersigned noted nearly identical deficiencies in the

order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint. At that time,

plaintiff was forewarned that a failure to file an amended complaint

complying with the court’s directives would likely result in a

recommendation that the action be dismissed. As noted above,

plaintiff’s amended complaint is still deficient and the undersigned

finds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Moreover, in light of the repeated deficiencies cited

above, any further attempt to amend would be futile. See Reddy v.

Litton Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman

Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987).

Finally, one final matter must be addressed. By “motion

for reconsideration” filed June 28, 2006, plaintiff requested that

the court reconsider its findings and recommendations filed on June

21, 2006, in which the court recommended dismissal without prejudice

due to plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. However, by

order filed June 28, 2006, the court vacated those findings and

recommendations when it was discovered that plaintiff had filed his

amended complaint but that the Clerk of the Court had inadvertently

filed it in another case being pursued by plaintiff. Therefore,

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will de denied as moot.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration is denied as moot.

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint

be dismissed without further leave to amend.

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)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 18, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\alvarez0413.ac.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 10/18/06 Page 6 of 6