Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00469/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00469-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

LEONARD JOHNSON, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-0469 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.4.)

DISCUSSION

A. 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." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

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

Case 1:16-cv-00469-NJV Document 5 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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 United States Supreme Court has recently 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 two essential

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

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that he was falsely arrested and his money was confiscated and not

returned. 

A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth

Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that

the arrest was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S.

547, 555-558 (1967); see, e.g. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918-919 (9th Cir.

2012) (en banc) (allegations that special prosecutor ordered or otherwise procured arrests

and arrests were without probable cause enough to state a § 1983 claim of unlawful arrest

against special prosecutor); Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)

(reversing denial of qualified immunity when there was "no question" that officers had

probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed the actus reus of theft, even though

reasonable people could draw different conclusions based on plaintiff's behavior). A claim

Case 1:16-cv-00469-NJV Document 5 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of bad faith in making an arrest may also be a cause of action under § 1983 as an illegal

and unconstitutional arrest. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en

banc). Knowingly arresting the wrong person pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant

intended for another person makes out a constitutional violation for false arrest. Lee v.

Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Malicious prosecution does not constitute a deprivation of liberty without due

process of law and is not a federal constitutional tort if process is available within the state

judicial system to remedy such wrongs. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556,

561-62 (9th Cir. 1987). But there is an exception to this general rule: where a prosecution

is conducted with malice and without probable cause, and with the intent to deprive a

person of equal protection of the laws or another specific constitutional right, a due process

claim may be stated. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.

1995) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), and Cline v.

Brusett, 661 F.2d 108, 110-12 (9th Cir. 1981)). See, e.g., Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931,

938 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding district court's grant of summary judgment on malicious

prosecution claim because probable cause existed to arrest and prosecute plaintiff for

arson); Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (no need to

decide whether there was malice because probable cause existed and probable cause is

an absolute defense to malicious prosecution claim). A plaintiff also must demonstrate the

elements of malicious prosecution under state law, Usher, 828 F.2d at 561, which, under

the Second Restatement of Torts, includes the institution of criminal proceedings against

another who is not guilty of the offense charged and that the proceedings have terminated

in favor of the accused, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 919 (9th Cir. 2012) (en

banc).

Plaintiff states that he was on the phone when police pulled up and falsely arrested

him for sale of drugs that were in bushes on public property. He states that the police did

not test the drugs for DNA and there was no recording of him selling drugs. He states that

Case 1:16-cv-00469-NJV Document 5 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Plaintiff is still in custody pending a violation of probation.

4

the district attorney’s office dropped the charges but his confiscated money was not

returned.1

 Plaintiff provides no other information and identifies no defendants except for a

deputy district attorney who presumably prosecuted the case and then dismissed the

charges.

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information

based on the legal standards set above. Plaintiff should identify individual defendants and

describe their actions and how they violated his rights. Simply alleging that the police

department was responsible for a false arrest with no other information is insufficient

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. 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: March 25, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00469-NJV Document 5 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 4