Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00551-3/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

DAVID L. MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. STAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00551-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is before the Court for 

screening.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

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

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is detained at Atascadero State Hospital but complains of acts that 

occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, 

California. He names the following defendants: (1) M. Stainer, Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (2) CSATF Warden, (3) S. Fleming, 

Correctional Counselor, (4) MDO Correctional Counselor, and (5) B. Kerr, LCSW.

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:

It appears that Plaintiff is detained at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to 

California Penal Code § 2960 et seq, which requires that certain offenders receive 

treatment from the Department of State Hospitals as a condition of parole. Prior to 

release from CSATF to Atascadero, Plaintiff requested a “burden of proof hearing” 

pursuant to Penal Code § 2966(a). His request was denied.

Plaintiff also alleges that, during his incarceration, he was incorrectly certified as 

an “MDO.” However, this certification was based off a false crime report/probation report 

used during his trial. His MDO certification was used in the decision to send him to 

Atascadero.

Plaintiff has filed habeas corpus proceedings in state court and other state court 

proceedings. He asks that the Court review all relevant documents and that he receive 

monetary compensation.

IV. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the bases for his confinement at Atascadero State 

Hospital. The exclusive method for challenging the fact or duration of Plaintiff’s 

confinement is by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 

U.S. 74, 78 (2005). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Such claims may not be brought in a 

section 1983 action. Nor may Plaintiff seek to invalidate the fact or duration of his 

confinement indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the 

unlawfulness of the State’s custody. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81. A section 1983 action is 

barred, no matter the relief sought, if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration. Id. at 81-82; Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) (unless and until favorable termination of the conviction or 

sentence, no cause of action under section 1983 exists); Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 

F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Heck to SVPA detainees with access to 

habeas relief).

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Based on the information currently before the Court, it appears that Plaintiff’s civil 

rights claims in this action are absolutely barred. Instead, his claims must be brought in a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This defect does not appear capable of being cured 

through amendment. Nevertheless, Plaintiff will be given one opportunity to amend his 

complaint if he believes in good faith he can do so. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he 

must allege facts to show that his claims do not call into the question the validity of his 

confinement.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). 

The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must 

demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a 

claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and a 

copy of his complaint, filed February 12, 2016;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed, with prejudice, 

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00551-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 5