Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02526/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02526-0/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

SERGEI PORTNOY,

Plaintiff, No. S-07-2526 LEW JFM PS

vs.

CITY OF WOODLAND, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to and

has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 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

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 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

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that 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 in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

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

Plaintiff names the City of Woodland, three Woodland police officers and Jeff W.

Reisig, Yolo County District Attorney as defendants in this action. Plaintiff alleges claims of

false arrest, deprivation of liberty and property, illegal search and seizure, violation of the Human

Rights Act, violation of the Freedom of Information Act and the California Information Practices

Act, and the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed 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 an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 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

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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

With regard to plaintiff’s claims concerning the unlawful deprivation of property,

plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient facts to determine whether he has stated a cognizable

claim. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional

deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

Thus, where the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional

deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 

Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of

Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that the

deprivation was authorized. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims

against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. It is unclear whether

plaintiff has attempted to seek redress in the state system, thus, plaintiff cannot sue in federal

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 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

 The Yolo County District Attorney’s office, phone number 530-666-8180, advises that 1

pro per litigants may appear at Department 11 of the Yolo County Superior Court, 725 Court

Street, Woodland, California, and request to be placed on the court calendar. The Yolo County

Court will then provide the pro per litigant with a minute order which the pro per litigant may

then deliver to the district attorney’s office to obtain a copy of the police report.

4

court on the claim that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. Unless

plaintiff alleges facts suggesting the deprivation was authorized, plaintiff’s property claim must

be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

With regard to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Reisig, prosecutors are

absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which challenge activities related

to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409

(1976). Determining whether a prosecutor's actions are immunized requires a functional

analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation underlying them,

determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir.

1986)(en banc). The prosecutor's quasi-judicial functions, rather than administrative or

investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of malicious prosecution,

falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment of exculpatory

evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Stevens v. Rifkin, 608

F.Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

Plaintiff contends he wrote a letter to the Yolo County District Attorney on

December 7, 2006, demanding release of all information contained in his arrest report. To the

extent plaintiff seeks to bring an action against defendant Reisig for violation of the Freedom of

Information Act, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has complied with the procedures

Yolo County has in place that enables pro se litigants to obtain a copy of the police report.

1

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so vague and conclusory

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 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

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 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

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 24, 2008.

/001; port2526.lta

Case 2:07-cv-02526-JAM -JFM Document 3 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 6