Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02550/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02550-8/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

ORDER * 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ALAN BECKHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGENT BELL, AGENT DOE, and

STOCKTON PAROLE SUPERVISOR

HUGO MERCADO, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-08-2550-EFS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Defendant Hugo Mercado’s Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff Alan Beckham filed a Complaint alleging various constitutional

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Ct. Rec. 12.) The Court directed

service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 27, 2009. (Ct. Rec. 13.)

Although service was accomplished on Defendant Mercado, the summons was

returned unexecuted on Defendant Bell because Plaintiff did not provide

a valid address. (Ct. Rec. 23.)

The following facts in Plaintiff’s complaint are accepted as true.

Plaintiff was arrested outside his apartment in Stockton, California on

December 28, 2007, by Defendants Bell and Doe, California Department of

Corrections agents acting under orders from their superior, Defendant

Mercado. During the arrest, Bell and Doe drew their firearms and aimed

them at Plaintiff.

Case 2:08-cv-02550-EFS Document 57 Filed 02/11/10 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

 In a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1

12(b)(6), a court may consider matters that are public record without

converting it into a motion for summary judgment. See Gemtel Corp. Cmty.

Redevelopment Agency of the City of L.A., 23 F.3d 1542, 1544 n.1 (9th

Cir. 1994). These facts are based on Plaintiff’s records from the Deuel

Vocational Institution, as authenticated by Patrick S. Nowling, the

Classification and Paroles Representative. Defendant Mercado asks the

Court to take judicial notice of these facts, and Plaintiff does not

object.

ORDER * 2

When the manager of Plaintiff’s apartment came out and asked why the

officers were there, Defendants Bell and Doe at first said nothing.

Later, however, they told the manager that Plaintiff is a child molester

and that they arrested him for absconding. Defendants Bell and Doe also

told Plaintiff’s father’s mobile home manager that Plaintiff is a child

molester. As a result, Plaintiff is no longer permitted to live in his

apartment or his father’s mobile home. He remains incarcerated for

having absconded.

The following facts are public record. After Plaintiff was 1

arrested, the Board of Parole brought charges against him for absconding.

At Plaintiff’s hearing, the Board of Parole changed the charge to failure

to report to his parole officer and found Plaintiff violated his parole.

As a consequence, his parole was revoked and he was returned to custody

for seven months.

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

Case 2:08-cv-02550-EFS Document 57 Filed 02/11/10 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

ORDER * 3

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint may be dismissed for failure to

state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) where the factual allegations do not

raise the right to relief above the speculative level. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). Conversely, a complaint may not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim where the allegations plausibly show that the pleader is

entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In ruling on a motion

under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must construe the pleadings in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff, and must accept all material factual

allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff sues for money damages based on unlawful imprisonment, but

this claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).

Heck stands for the proposition that a § 1983 plaintiff who sues for harm

caused by “actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction invalid”

may not recover unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has

been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by

collateral review. Id. This rule applies equally to convictions based

on parole proceedings. See Hiltunen v. Bayer, 6 Fed. App’x 629, 630 (9th

Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff’s unlawful imprisonment claim depends on

the invalidity of his conviction for a parole violation and Plaintiff did

not allege that he successfully challenged that conviction, this claim

is barred under Heck. Additionally, because no other Defendant has been

served in this case, all of Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.

Case 2:08-cv-02550-EFS Document 57 Filed 02/11/10 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

ORDER * 4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant Mercado’s Motion to Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 24) is GRANTED.

All claims against Defendant Mercado are DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. Within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall

submit the following documents to the Court:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each remaining Defendant;

and

c. Two copies of the Complaint (Ct. Rec. 12).

3. The Court cautions Plaintiff that failing to submit the abovedescribed documents within thirty days or failure to submit valid

addresses for the remaining named Defendants following failed service of

process within sixty days will be construed as permission to dismiss this

lawsuit with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41.

4. Defendant Mercado’s Motion to Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 29) is DENIED

as moot.

5. Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Ct. Recs. 22,

26, & 48) are DENIED because there are no remaining named Defendants who

have been properly served. Plaintiff may renew such motions if service

is completed.

Case 2:08-cv-02550-EFS Document 57 Filed 02/11/10 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

ORDER * 5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff and counsel.

DATED this 10th day of February 2010.

 s/Edward F. Shea 

EDWARD F. SHEA

United States District Judge

Q:\Civil\Other Cts\CA-ED\ED.CA.08.2550.Dismiss.wpd

Case 2:08-cv-02550-EFS Document 57 Filed 02/11/10 Page 5 of 5