Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01963/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01963-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS GARDNER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-1963 GGH P

vs.

STEVEN DARDEN, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a Solano County jail inmate proceeding pro se. He seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to

proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly

1

Case 2:12-cv-01963-AC Document 6 Filed 09/11/12 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

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust

account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127

S.Ct. 1955). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content

2

Case 2:12-cv-01963-AC Document 6 Filed 09/11/12 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

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct.

1843 (1969). 

Plaintiff names Vallejo Police Officer Steven Darden, Badge # 529, as the

defendant, contending that on June 10, 2011, he was arrested for trespass in violation of

probation, posted bail, and was arrested again on October 20, 2011, for trespassing and for a

felony probation violation. Plaintiff contends he was not on probation when he was arrested for 1

either probation violation. Plaintiff asks for a jury trial to award appropriate damages. 

Complaint,pp. 1-3.

Plaintiff’s claim appears to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.

Ct. 2364 (1994), from proceeding on his money damages claim against the defendant arresting

officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Heck, an Indiana state prisoner brought a civil rights action 2

under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county officials violated his constitutional

rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the investigation leading to his arrest, for the

destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial (“illegal and unlawful voice

identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and serving a fifteen

year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The United States

Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the complaint and held that:

 Oddly, although plaintiff dated the complaint as signed on November 17, 2011, it was 1

not filed in this court until July 26, 2012.

 Although plaintiff does list one defendant, he does not actually set forth within his 2

allegations that defendant Darden was the arresting officer during either or both incidents. 

3

Case 2:12-cv-01963-AC Document 6 Filed 09/11/12 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

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a claim, like plaintiff’s, that unfounded 

criminal charges have been brought against him is barred by Heck. Smithhart v. Towery, 79 F.3d

951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“[t]here is no question that Heck bars Smithart’s claims

that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges

against him”). In other words, plaintiff, as petitioner, “ may challenge the validity of his arrest,

prosecution and conviction only by writ of habeas corpus.” Id. Plaintiff may only proceed in this

action for money damages if he can demonstrate that any revocation of probation or state court

judgment against him as a result of the subject arrests has been expunged, dismissed or otherwise

invalidated. The complaint will be dismissed but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore,

vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not

4

Case 2:12-cv-01963-AC Document 6 Filed 09/11/12 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

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

Sheriff of Solano County filed concurrently herewith.

3. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file

an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date of service of this order. Failure to

file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: September 11, 2012

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gard1963.b

5

Case 2:12-cv-01963-AC Document 6 Filed 09/11/12 Page 5 of 5