Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01632-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD LOUIE OCHOA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERRIFF DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01632 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

Plaintiff Leonard Louie Ochoa, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 28, 2015. He consented to 

the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on November 12, 2015. Plaintiff names the Sheriff’s

Department as Defendant. 

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in 

part, if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

Case 1:15-cv-01632-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/04/16 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

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation 

marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer 

possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff, who is housed at Atascadero State Hospital, brings this civil rights action against 

the Sheriff’s Department for his continued detention.

“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the 

relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct 

leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-

2, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). In this case, Plaintiff states that San Fernando Superior Court 

Judge David Gelfound utilized Proposition #47 to dismiss all three counts against him. 

Thereafter, instead of releasing him, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department detained him 

in jail and eventually transported him to Atascadero State Hospital where he is currently detained. 

Plaintiff claims this was a mistake and he should be released from custody. Plaintiff is 

challenging his continued detention and is therefore precluded from seeking relief in this section 

1983 action. Id. Plaintiff must seek relief for his claims by filing a habeas corpus action.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim is barred because Plaintiff is challenging his continued 

detention. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-2. This deficiency is not capable of being cured through 

Case 1:15-cv-01632-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/04/16 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

amendment, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000), and this action is HEREBY 

ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. The 

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff blank forms for filing a habeas corpus action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01632-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 3