Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MARIO GUERRERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYON BLEUM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-10948-SKO (PC)

ORDER (1) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO SEND COMPLAINT FORM AND 

HABEAS PETITION FORM, (2) 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND (3) 

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE HABEAS 

PETITION, AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

I. Background

Plaintiff Luis Mario Guerrero (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil 

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 20, 2014.

1

 The United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California transferred the action to the Eastern District of 

California given Plaintiff’s present incarceration at Valley State Prison (“VSP”) in Chowchilla, 

California, as venue for claims arising out of conditions of confinement at VSP is proper in this 

district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, the precise basis for Plaintiff’s legal claim is unclear, and 

 

1

Plaintiff alternates identifying himself as Luis Mario Guerrero, Luis Mario Guerrero Angulo, and Luis Mario Angulo 

Vaes.

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/15/14 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

Plaintiff shall be required to clarify the nature of his claim.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (courts are 

required to review complaints brought by prisoners against governmental entities or against 

officers or employees of governmental entities).

II. Nature of Claim

Plaintiff is incarcerated at VSP and if he seeks to litigate his conditions of confinement at 

VSP in this action, venue is proper in this district.3 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, Plaintiff is 

suing various state parole agents and police officers located in Los Angeles, California, and if he is 

seeking to litigate a violation of his federal rights based on events which occurred in Los Angeles, 

venue is proper in the Central District of California and this case will be transferred. 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a); see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective 

venue sua sponte); see also Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991) (courts 

have broad discretion regarding severance). (Doc. 1, Comp., §§ II, III.) Further complicating this 

determination is the relief sought by Plaintiff: an order vacating his conviction and retrial in 

federal court, apparently.

4

 While a challenge to conditions of confinement is properly raised in a 

civil rights action, a challenge to the fact and/or the duration of confinement must be raised in a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Badea v.Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 

1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973)); accord 

Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 

 

2

Plaintiff filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis, but determination of appropriate filing fee is dependent 

upon Plaintiff’s clarification regarding the nature of his claim and the Court defers its ruling until Plaintiff files either 

an amended complaint or a habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

3

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights by 

persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of 

Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability

under section 1983 may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and Plaintiff must allege some causal 

connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 

1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

4

For relief sought, Plaintiff alleges, “Yes your honor I am asking for a reset or refile & retrial to a fed. trial-court for 

lawsuit - suppression ground & compensation order through the LA [Sheriff’s] Dept. & Administration/County as 

ordered by them & the County of LA.” (Comp., § IV (emphasis added).)

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/15/14 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

The Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to provide Plaintiff with a habeas petition form 

and a complaint form. Plaintiff shall file either (1) a habeas petition setting forth facts supporting 

his challenge to the fact and/or the duration of his confinement or (2) a complaint setting forth 

facts supporting his claim that his federal rights were violated, through either his conditions of 

confinement at VSP or the actions or omissions of police offers and parole agents in Los Angeles. 

Depending on whether Plaintiff intends to pursue a habeas petition or a civil rights action, the 

Court will rule on his pending application to proceed in forma pauperis as is appropriate. In the 

alternative, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may file a notice of voluntary 

dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a habeas petition form and a complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff required to 

file a habeas petition, an amended complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

3. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 3