Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00992-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WILLIAM BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE

OF OHIO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00992-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 1)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Rodney William Bailey (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

August 3, 2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:05-cv-00992-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 Hospital 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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff is suing the Governor of the State of Ohio, the Scioto County Sheriff’s Department

(in Ohio), the California Department of Corrections, and the California Board of Prison Terms. The

basis of plaintiff’s claim is that he was extradited back to California on a parole violation while his

criminal case in Ohio was still pending. Plaintiff seeks an injunction mandating his return to the

State of Ohio so that he may face his charges there and other unspecified available relief.

In his complaint, which is conclusory in nature, plaintiff alleges that he sought assistance

from CDC to comply with section 1389 of the penal code but his request was rejected. Section 1389

of the California Penal Code allows a prisoner in one jurisdiction to demand that he be tried within

one-hundred eighty days on an untried indictment, information, or complaint in another jurisdiction

where a detainer based on the untried indictment, information, or complaint has been lodged against

him by the district attorney. Cal. Penal Code § 1389 (West 2005). Unless and until the district

attorney’s office in Scioto County has a lodged a detainer against plaintiff based on the untried

charges against him, plaintiff may not invoke the protections of the Interstate Agreement of

Detainers, as set forth in section 1389.

 Regardless of whether or not a detainer has been lodged against plaintiff, this court does not

have jurisdiction over authorities in the State of Ohio. To the extent that plaintiff has a remedy, it

must be pursued in the jurisdiction where charges are pending against him. Further, under principles

of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

Case 1:05-cv-00992-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except underspecial circumstances. Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings,

judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the

state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County

Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the

Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 

With respect to CDC and the Board of Prison Terms, plaintiff has alleged no grounds upon

which to base a claim under section 1983. First, defendants are not “persons” under section 1983

and defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990);

Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9 th Cir. 1993); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Second, the crux of plaintiff’s claim is that his inability to face the charges

against him in Ohio is violating his rights. As set forth in the preceding paragraph, this is an

improper forum for plaintiff to raise that claim.

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 

without leave to amend.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00992-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 09/16/05 Page 3 of 3