Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00582/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00582-2/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

BRICE ANTHONY PEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN REALI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0582 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2016, plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with thirty 

days’ leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court for 

screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction over all proceedings this action. (ECF No. 4.)

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that Sacramento County Detective Reali caused 

plaintiff to be maliciously prosecuted on a criminal firearm count. At trial, plaintiff was acquitted 

of this count, though found guilty of other counts stemming from the same incident. (See ECF 

No. 5.) In the amended complaint, plaintiff names additional defendants in Sacramento County 

law enforcement, including the prosecutor in plaintiff’s case, Aaron Miller. (ECF No. 10.) 

Plaintiff asserts that Miller maliciously amended the information to charge him with two 

additional felonies after plaintiff filed an excessive force claim against the officers involved in 

Case 2:16-cv-00582-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s arrest. (Id. at 20-21, 31-36, 42.) Plaintiff was subsequently found not guilty of one of 

these charges. (Id. at 83.) Plaintiff alleges that malicious prosecution is “persistent and 

widespread” in Sacramento County, amounting to a municipal policy. (Id. at 17.) 

Having reviewed the amended complaint and attached records, the undersigned concludes 

that it fails to cure the defects of the original complaint as discussed in the May 20, 2016 

screening order. Plaintiff fails to state a malicious prosecution claim under the standard in 

Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995) and has not alleged an 

unconstitutional county policy. Because it appears that another round of amendment would be 

futile, the undersigned will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim.

Dated: September 21, 2016

2 / peel0582.fac

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00582-TLN-CKD Document 11 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2