Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07645/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07645-0/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

KENNETH R. CALIHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARRETT AUSTIN SLOINKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07645-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Docket No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Kenneth R. Calihan, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. This order requires Mr. Calihan to file an amended complaint to correct several 

pleading deficiencies. 

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Calihan alleges that San Jose police officers Sloinker and Barrera “filed false charges” 

against him on August 30, 2019, and presented false information to the district attorney. Docket 

No. 1 at 3. This allegedly resulted in Mr. Calihan being stabbed by another inmate a couple of 

weeks later. Id. He also alleges that he expects the pending criminal charges to be dismissed. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See id. at 

Case 3:19-cv-07645-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 5
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

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

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 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 complaint has several problems. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Calihan may 

file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this order.

The complaint fails to state a claim based on allegations that two police officers filed false 

charges against him. He fails to identify the particular way in which the charges were false. To 

prevail on a § 1983 claim of deliberate fabrication of evidence, “a plaintiff must prove that (1) the 

defendant official deliberately fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate fabrication caused the 

plaintiff's deprivation of liberty.” Caldwell v. City and County of San Francisco, 889 F.3d 1105, 

1115 (9th Cir. 2018). 

More significantly, it appears that Mr. Calihan’s claim might be barred by the Heck rule. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot 

bring a civil rights action for damages for a wrongful conviction or imprisonment, or for other 

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, unless 

that conviction or sentence or other decision already has been determined to be wrongful. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A conviction or sentence may be determined to 

be wrongful by, for example, being reversed on appeal or being set aside when a state or federal 

court issues a writ of habeas corpus. See id. The Heck rule also prevents a person from bringing 

Case 3:19-cv-07645-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 5
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

an action that--even if it does not directly challenge the conviction or other decision--would imply 

that the conviction or other decision was invalid. The practical importance of the Heck rule is that 

plaintiffs cannot attack their convictions or sentences in a civil rights action for damages and 

instead must have successfully attacked the decision before filing the civil rights action for 

damages. The Heck rule requires dismissal of a case where the conviction has occurred. When 

the action is brought by a pretrial detainee and the criminal proceedings are still pending, the 

action will be stayed rather than dismissed if it would, if successful, “impugn an anticipated future 

conviction.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007). 

Here, it appears that Mr. Calihan is in custody as a result of the very criminal charges that 

he alleges are false. It may be that success on Mr. Calihan’s § 1983 claims would, if successful, 

call into question an existing or future conviction. The complaint is dismissed with leave to 

amend so that Mr. Calihan can provide some information necessary for the Court to determine 

whether there is a Heck problem in this case. In his amended complaint, Mr. Calihan list the 

criminal charges that were filed against him by officers Sloinker and Barrera. He also must 

explain the status of those charges, e.g., whether the charges are still pending, have resulted in a 

conviction, or have been dismissed. Mr. Calihan also must describe the statements in the report by 

officers Sloinker and Barrera that were false. He also should provide any other factual 

information he can think of to explain why the claim that the officers filed false charges should not 

be stayed or dismissed under the Heck rule.

The other claim in the complaint appears to be that Mr. Calihan was stabbed in jail. Mr. 

Calihan alleges that this stabbing was the result of the false charges filed against him by the police 

officers – apparently on the theory that, because their actions caused him to be jailed, they are 

liable for all bad things that eventually happen to him in jail. However, there must be a closer

causal connection between alleged wrongdoing and injury than simply that the defendant caused 

the plaintiff to be put in a jail where the plaintiff was later injured. “In a § 1983 action, the 

plaintiff must . . . demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the 

claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causation-infact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-07645-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 5
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

2008). Mr. Calihan must allege facts showing what defendants did or failed to do that caused him 

to be stabbed, beyond merely filing false charges that led to him being put in the jail where the 

stabbing occurred.

If Mr. Calihan believes that the stabbing occurred as the result of the conduct of some jail 

official(s), he may name the jail official(s) whose acts or inactions caused him to be stabbed. To

state a claim that an individual official failed to protect a pretrial detainee, a plaintiff must allege 

facts showing these elements: 

(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the 

conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) Those 

conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm; (3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures 

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the 

circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 

involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct 

obvious; and (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused 

the plaintiff's injuries.

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 

S. Ct. 831 (2017). 

The complaint also lists the San Jose Police Department as a defendant but makes no 

allegations against that entity. Mr. Calihan cannot hold a municipal entity liable simply because it

employs the individual wrongdoers. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no 

liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another, such as an 

employee. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Tsao v. 

Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, a claim would not be stated 

against a city or a city’s police department merely because that entity employed the alleged 

wrongdoers. 

Local governments, such as the City of San Jose, are “persons” subject to liability under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. See Monell v. Dep't of 

Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a 

violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed a 

constitutional right of which [he] was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this 

policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) that the 

Case 3:19-cv-07645-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation.” See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 

County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). For municipal liability, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts regarding the specific 

nature of the alleged policy, custom or practice to allow the defendant to effectively defend itself, 

and these facts must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See AE v. County of 

Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012). It is not sufficient to merely allege that a policy, 

custom or practice existed or that individual officers’ wrongdoing conformed to a policy, custom 

or practice. See id. at 636-68. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Calihan may attempt to 

allege a Monell claim against the San Jose Police Department or City of San Jose. He must be 

careful to allege the specific policy, custom or practices of each municipal entity that he contends 

give rise to liability.

IV. CONCLUSION

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint 

that complies with the directions in this order no later than March 13, 2020, and must include the 

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

first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his 

claims, except that he may not repeat claims the court has dismissed without leave to amend and 

may not repeat allegations against defendants the court has dismissed from this action. See Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with 

prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will 

consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the amended complaint will 

result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07645-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 5