Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948-2/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 DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO 

OPEN SEPARATE HABEAS CASE AND

DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 11)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Luis Mario Guerrero (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, 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 

was unclear, and Plaintiff was ordered to clarify the nature of his claim. 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). To that end, Plaintiff was provided with 

the following notice:

 

1

Plaintiff identified himself alternatively as Luis Mario Guerrero, Luis Mario Guerrero Angulo, and Luis Mario 

Angulo Vaes.

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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 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.2 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.

3

 

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). 

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). 

(Doc. 9, Order, 2:5-3:9.) 

Instead of complying with the order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a habeas 

petition in this action, neither of which set forth a coherent statement of claim. The Court remains 

unable to discern the bases for Plaintiff’s claims or to determine whether venue is proper in this 

district for his civil rights claims. 

Plaintiff may not proceed in one action on his civil rights and habeas claims. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights action shall be 

 

2

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). 

3

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 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

granted, the Clerk’s Office will be directed to open a separate habeas action for Plaintiff, and 

Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint in this action. If the second amended complaint 

again fails to set forth any coherent claims for relief, this action will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim under section 1983.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall open a separate habeas case and docket Plaintiff’s habeas 

petition and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 10; Doc. 11, court record pp. 

5-12);

2. Plaintiff’s habeas petition is DISREGARDED in this action and his amended 

complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;4

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff required to file a

second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

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

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

4

Striking the petition is problematic given the confusion of pages between the habeas petition and the amended 

complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 3