Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02637/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02637-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff cites other statutes under which she brings this

action. However, many of them do not apply to this case. For

instance, 42 U.S.C. § 1391 addresses appropriations for combating

mental retardation, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 addresses discrimination on

the basis of race in the making and enforcement of contracts, 42

U.S. § 1988 addresses awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing

party in a civil rights suit, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 addresses

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1404

addresses change of venue, and 28 U.S.C. § 2464 addresses the

security necessary to discharge property arrested in an admiralty

case. She cites two statutes which do not exist: 28 U.S.C. § 1376

and 28 U.S.C. § 2865.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY LOREN-MALTESE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 09-02637 CW

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT UNDER 28

U.S.C. § 1915A

Plaintiff Betty Loren-Maltese, a federal prisoner incarcerated

at the Federal Half-Way House in Las Vegas, Nevada, files this

action alleging violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28

U.S.C. §§ 2671-80, and of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 et seq., and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1

Plaintiff sues the United States, the United Stated Department of

Justice, the United States Internal Revenue Service, the Honorable

John Grady, district court judge in the Northern District of

Illinois, five judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States Attorney and several Assistant United States

Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois (together, federal

Defendants), and former officials of the town of Cicero, Illinois,

the two attorneys who represented Plaintiff in her criminal

proceedings, the attorney who represented Joseph DeChicio,

Plaintiff's co-defendant, and two individuals who were appointed as

guardians of Plaintiff's minor daughter (together, private

Defendants). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following. She is the former mayor of

Cicero, Illinois. On February 22, 2002, she, along with seven

other individuals, was criminally charged by the United States with

violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., wire and mail fraud, and

conspiracy to impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the

assessment and collection of taxes. The case involved a fraud

committed against the town of Cicero by Specialty Risk Consultants

(SRC), the company hired to process the health insurance claims of

Cicero's employees. Cicero was self-insured, in that it provided

health insurance coverage for its employees through its own funds. 

It used a third-party administrator, SRC, to process the claims. 

Cicero funded SRC through weekly wire transfers initiated and

approved by Cicero Treasurer Joseph DeChicio with the aid of Town

Clerk Mark Moro. The amounts transferred to SRC escalated over

time. In 1996, federal law enforcement began investigating SRC. 

In early 1997, the Cicero Town Board fired SRC. Using Plaintiff's

name stamp, DeChicio authorized and continued to make wire

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

transfers to SRC in excess of $770,000. Plaintiff had no knowledge

of these payments.

In December, 2001, the United States placed a lien on

Plaintiff's residence for an undisclosed amount before the criminal

indictment against her was filed. It filed the lien in Las Vegas

where the property is located, even though she was indicted and

tried in district court in the Seventh Circuit. Based on these

allegations, Plaintiff asserts that federal Defendants violated her

Fifth Amendment right to due process by attaching her property.

Defendants, individually and acting in a conspiracy, prevented

Plaintiff from being present at all crucial times during pre-trial

proceedings. They also prevented her from being present during the

questioning of the jurors. During the trial, former Cicero

officials knowingly testified falsely against Plaintiff. The jury

found Plaintiff guilty of one count of conspiracy to violate RICO,

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and five counts of wire and mail fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346. The jury acquitted

Joseph DeChicio of all charges. Plaintiff's counsel failed to

produce a single witness to rebut claims of fabrication of

evidence. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts that

Defendants violated her rights to due process and equal protection

guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and

conspired to violate these rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1985(3).

Plaintiff asserts that her sentence was vacated in United

States v. Spano, 421 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2005), but that she

remained in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons even though it had

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the duty to release her. The judges on the Seventh Circuit joked

about her case and failed to carry out the constitutional duties

and responsibilities of their office. Based on these allegations,

Plaintiff asserts that her Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights were

violated by federal Defendants. 

Defendants Pat Rand and Patrick Kennedy lied to the state

court in order to become the sole guardians of Plaintiff's minor

daughter. Based on this allegation, Plaintiff asserts claims

against Rand and Kennedy for violating her Fourth, Fifth and Eighth

Amendment rights to be the guardian and sole parent of her minor

child.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)

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). 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). Pro se pleadings

must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica

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

II. Civil Rights Claims

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

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

(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). Federal actors acting under federal authority are immune

from suit under § 1983. Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1323

(9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987). A private

right of action, however, may be implied from the Constitution

itself for allegations of constitutional violations made against

federal employees or their agents. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971). Except that one is brought

against state actors and the other against federal actors, actions

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens are identical. Martin v. Sias,

88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. Heck v. Humphrey

In order to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction

or sentence invalid, a 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, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship

to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

When a plaintiff seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district

court must therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his or her

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be

dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction

or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. Although Heck

involved a claim under § 1983, the Ninth Circuit has held that the

rationale of Heck applies in cases brought under Federal Tort

Claims Act and Bivens. Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d 1127, 1133

(9th Cir. 2004) (FTCA); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.

1996) (Bivens). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's claims against federal Defendants would, if

meritorious, imply the invalidity of her conviction. Plaintiff

appealed her conviction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in

United States v. Spano, 421 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2005). The court

concluded that the trial judge had erred in rounding down the loss

estimation of the victim and remanded for re-sentencing. Id. at

608. However, it affirmed Plaintiff's convictions. Id. at 602-06. 

The United States Supreme Court denied her petition for writ of

certiorari. Loren-Maltese v. United States, 546 U.S. 1095 (2006). 

On November 8, 2007, the district court denied her motion to vacate

her conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. United States

v. Loren-Maltese, 2007 WL 3334345 (N.D. Ill.). 

Because Plaintiff has unsuccessfully appealed her conviction

and has unsuccessfully moved to have her conviction and sentence

set aside under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, her conviction is final. 

Therefore, pursuant to Heck, Plaintiff's § 1983 and tort claims

against the federal Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff's civil rights claims against the private

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

Defendants fail because, as individuals, they did not act under

color of state law or under federal authority when committing the

acts upon which Plaintiff’s claims are based. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for

failure to state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/18/2010 ____________________________ CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY LOREN-MALTESE et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

USA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-02637 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 18, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Betty Loren-Maltese

Reg. No. 13706-424

Federal Half-Way House

2901 Industrial Rd.

Las Vegas, NV 89109

Dated: March 18, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-02637-CW Document 15 Filed 03/18/10 Page 8 of 8