Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00112/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00112-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN GARRETT BAUTISTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, etc.; 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-112 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Shawn Garrett Bautista, formerly incarcerated at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for

consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, following a reversal of the court's earlier order of

dismissal and remand for further consideration. 

BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint's Allegations

In his complaint, Bautista alleged that he was denied various procedural protections in

several parole revocation proceedings. He apparently was taken into custody on four occasions

for different parole violations and spent time in custody each time his parole was revoked. He

alleges that the hearings to revoke his parole on each occasion were not in compliance with the

requirements of due process, e.g., the hearing officer allowed a witness to testify outside

Bautista's presence and his various objections about evidence were denied. At the last parole

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 6
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

revocation hearing on September 16, 2004, the board determined that Bautista's controlling

discharge date of September 5, 2004 had already passed and therefore the board lacked

jurisdiction to hold the hearing. The board elected to discharge Bautista from parole. 

Bautista also alleged claims about mistreatment by correctional officer Villa on January

28, 2003 and his many efforts to complain about that mistreatment as well as the various

problems he encountered while doing so. These allegations were not new; they repeated the

allegations made in Bautista v. Alameda, C 03-5766 SI, which was dismissed months earlier. 

B. Procedural History Of The Case

The court reviewed the complaint and dismissed it without leave to amend. The court

explained:

The complaint does not adequately identify the basis for liability for each of the several

defendants so that the court can analyze whether any of them acted or failed to act in a

way that violated Bautista's constitutional rights. Leave to amend will not be granted,

however, because there are two distinct problems fatal to Bautista's claims that he was

not afforded the various procedural protections to which he was entitled when his parole

was revoked: his claims are barred by Heck and the persons who decided to revoke

parole have immunity for such decisions.

Order Of Dismissal, p. 2. The court further decided that the claims regarding Bautista's alleged

mistreatment by correctional officer Villa on January 28, 2003 and his many efforts to complaint

about the mistreatment as well as the various problems he encountered while doing so repeated

the allegations made in an earlier action and could not be relitigated in this action. 

Bautista appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the

dismissal and remanded the case with these comments. First, the Ninth Circuit directed this

court to reconsider whether Heck barred Bautista's action in light of the information that he was

released from incarceration upon the expiration of his parole. Second, the appellate court stated

that it was not clear that all parole board defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. Third,

the Ninth Circuit noted that Bautista may also state a claim that he was improperly detained past

the maximum termination date of his sentence. See Bautista v. Alameida, 9th Cir. No. 05-15800.

Although the memorandum decision was filed in the Ninth Circuit on February 22, 2006 and the

remand issued in late March, the case file was not returned to this court until four weeks ago.

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 6
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

It is now time to resume the litigation of this action. That puts this action back at the starting

point, i.e., review of the sufficiency of the complaint. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

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

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint has several deficiencies which must be cured by the filing of an amended

complaint. First, as previously noted, the complaint does not adequately identify the basis for

liability for each of the several defendants so that the court can analyze whether any of them

acted or failed to act in a way that violated Bautista's constitutional rights. Bautista must be

careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each individual defendant. He should

not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., "the defendants" or "the staff;" rather, he should

identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to his claim by explaining what

each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. See Leer

v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may be imposed on individual defendant

under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant proximately caused deprivation of

federally protected right). Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under

section 1983. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under section 1983

solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 6
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

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d

675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984); accord Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)

(local governments cannot be liable under § 1983 under respondeat superior theory). A

supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of personal involvement in the

constitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful

conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446

(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). A supervisor generally "is only liable for

constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

at 1045. 

Bautista may use Doe defendant designations to refer to defendants whose names are

unknown to him. (If Bautista alleges that multiple unknown people violated his constitutional

rights, each unknown person must be identified as a separate John Doe, e.g., John Doe #1, John

Doe #2, etc. so that eventually each John Doe defendant can be replaced by a separate person

when his or her true name becomes known.) Although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable

to withstand dismissal of the complaint at the initial review stage, using Doe defendants creates

its own problem: those persons cannot be served with process in this action until they are

identified by their real names. Plaintiff must promptly take steps to discover the name of the

unnamed defendant and provide that information to the court in an amendment to his pleading.

The burden remains on the plaintiff; the court will not undertake to investigate the names and

identities of unnamed defendants. Plaintiff must provide a true name and address for any Doe

defendant no later than November 30, 2006. Any Doe defendant whose true name and an

adequate address for service of process has not been provided by the deadline (or who cannot

be served at the address provided) will be dismissed without prejudice.

Second, Bautista must allege the particular ways in which due process was allegedly

denied for each of the parole revocations. For example, he states that he "later" will allege the

particular due process violations that occurred in connection with the November 2002 revocation

in addition to the alleged untimeliness of it. See Complaint, p. 5. "Later" has now arrived:

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Bautista must allege the particular ways in which the parole revocation proceedings violated his

right to due process. 

Third, the scope of the amended complaint is limited: Bautista can only complain about

the four parole revocations covered in his original complaint as well as his alleged detention

beyond the end of his maximum termination date for his sentence. He may not include any

allegations about his alleged mistreatment by correctional officer Villa on January 28, 2003 and

his many efforts to complain about that mistreatment as well as the various problems he

encountered while doing so. The court earlier dismissed those claims as frivolous and without

leave to amend because they repeated allegations made in an earlier action. Furthermore, the

Ninth Circuit's decision did not mention these claims at all, from which this court deduces that

either Bautista did not appeal that part of the dismissal or, if he did appeal it, the Ninth Circuit's

reversal and remand does not include those claims. 

Per the Ninth Circuit's instruction, the court determines that Heck does not bar the due

process claims concerning the parole revocation proceedings. See Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d

872, 877-78 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2002). Because the complaint needs to be amended to more clearly

articulate who the defendants are and what they allegedly did wrong to Bautista, the court is

unable to determine from the allegations of the complaint that any parole board defendant is

entitled to absolute immunity See Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th Cir. 2004)

(parole officers are not absolutely immune from suits arising from conduct distinct from the

decision to grant, deny, or revoke parole). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The

amended complaint must be filed no later than September 1, 2006. The amended complaint

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a

complete statement of his claims and will supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 5 of 6
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

in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the

amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action.

Bautista is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must promptly keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). If he has multiple actions pending, he must file a change

of address notice in each pending action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00112-SI Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 6 of 6