Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05719/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05719-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WANDA KILLION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05719-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Michael Scott Arcelus, who is being held at Napa State Hospital, has filed a pro se civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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). 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

Case 3:15-cv-05719-JD Document 9 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Arcelus seeks monetary damages against doctors who allegedly extended his legal 

commitment.

In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, 

or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence 

invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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, 486-487 (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.

In his brief complaint, Arcelus argues that defendants used false information to imprison 

him and extend his legal commitment pursuant to California Penal Code section 1026, which 

involves pleas of insanity. He provides little information regarding his underlying commitment 

and the extension that appears to have occurred in 2014 and 2015. To the extent Arcelus seeks 

monetary damages he may only continue if the commitment extension has been invalidated or 

reversed. His arguments that defendants used false information and lied directly apply to the 

validity of the commitment extension. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to 

Case 3:15-cv-05719-JD Document 9 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provide more information concerning the underlying commitment and the extension and why this 

action is not barred by Heck. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05719-JD Document 9 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WANDA KILLION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05719-JD 

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 January 8, 2016, 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.

Michael Scott Arcelus ID: N.A. 2118214

Napa State Hospital

2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy

Napa, CA 94558-6293 

Dated: January 8, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-05719-JD Document 9 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 4