Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00528-0/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 

JON LLOYD HOUSTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0528-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1 He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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. 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:16-cv-00528-EFB Document 6 Filed 06/14/16 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

§ 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). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaints (ECF Nos. 1 & 5) pursuant to § 1915A and 

finds that this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the original complaint, 

plaintiff names the “Sacramento Superior Court,” Judge Wen, his public defender, and the Public 

Case 2:16-cv-00528-EFB Document 6 Filed 06/14/16 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

Defender’s Office as defendants. He alleges that the judge denied his motion for new counsel and 

ordered transcripts from the hearing sealed, thereby forcing plaintiff to “face trial [on] 3/7/16 with 

unjust representation.” In the amended complaint, plaintiff names Judge Goodman as a 

defendant. Plaintiff seeks damages as relief. 

 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff does not identify any specific claims for relief, but his 

allegations suggest that he wishes to challenge the constitutionality of his criminal trial. As set 

forth below, the allegations fail to state a cognizable claim under the applicable standards. 

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of 

confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Where success in a section 1983 action would 

implicitly question the validity of confinement or its duration, the plaintiff must first show that 

the underlying conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). 

If plaintiff succeeded on a constitutional claim that his trial was unfair, it would necessarily 

implicate the validity or duration of his confinement. Thus, this action is barred by Heck. 

Plaintiff has also failed to name proper defendants. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against 

the “Sacramento Superior Court” because it is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. In 

addition, arms of the state, such as the state courts, are immune from suit under the Eleventh 

Amendment. Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 

2003). Further, plaintiff cannot state a claim against the judge based upon his or her rulings in 

plaintiff’s criminal trial because judges are absolutely immune from suit. Schucker v. Rockwood, 

846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). In addition, plaintiff’s court-appointed 

attorney cannot be sued under § 1983, see Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981) 

(public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing a 

Case 2:16-cv-00528-EFB Document 6 Filed 06/14/16 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

lawyer’s traditional functions), and any potential claims for legal malpractice do not come within 

the jurisdiction of the federal courts, Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). 

Because the deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim cannot be cured by further amendment, the 

complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 

(9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)); 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.”). 

IV. Summary of Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently 

herewith. 

3. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Clerk is directed to close the 

case. 

Dated: June 14, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00528-EFB Document 6 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 4