Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00703/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00703-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

LEWIS FORBES, et al., No. CIV S-07-0703-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiffs, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SACRAMENTO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Lewis Forbes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Co-plaintiff Sarah Rochon, plaintiff Forbes’ wife, is not

incarcerated. Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. 1).

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

Case 2:07-cv-00703-FCD-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/25/07 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

2

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege improper interrogation by police officers

incident to plaintiff Forbes’ arrest on January 6, 2007. Specifically, plaintiffs allege:

On 1-6-07 I (Lewis Forbes) stopped by to visit my wife Sarah Rochen. I

was in the shower when Sacramento Police came to the door. I got out of

the bathroom and two Sacramento police officers rushed me and placed

me under arrest. Officer[s] Coopwood and Harshbarger began to question

my wife Sarah. I told her not to talk to them. Officer Coopwood told me

to “shut up or I’ll arrest Sarah’s son Matthew Castellanos (who is on

parole).” I told him he has nothing to do with this issue. Coopwood again

attempted [to] question Sarah again. I told her to get a lawyer, that you do

not have to talk to them. Sarah then told officers Coopwood and

Harshbarger that “I want a lawyer, I would feel more comfortable if I had

a lawyer present.” Then Officer Coopwood said to her “You don’t need

no lawyer, we just need to ask you a few questions and we will be done

here!” I said “Get a lawyer. Don’t talk to them!” Then Officer

Coopwood directed Officer Harshbarger to “Get him out of here!” I was

then escorted to the patrol car. While I was being escorted out, I noticed

Officer Coopwood attempt to question Sarah again, with deliberate

indifference.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and an order “to fire the officers involved or charge them

criminally.”

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that the officers engaged in improper

custodial interrogation, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Specifically, plaintiffs seem to assert

that the officers should not have attempted to interrogate plaintiff Rochon because she demanded

to have an attorney present. However, according to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00703-FCD-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/25/07 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

3

Rochon was never in custody. The only person in custody was plaintiff Forbes. Therefore, the

Miranda rule regarding custodial interrogation does not apply as to plaintiff Rochon. Further,

there is no allegation in the complaint that plaintiff Forbes was subject to custodial interrogation

following a request to have an attorney present. Put simply, the complaint does not state a

constitutional violation as to either plaintiff.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00703-FCD-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3