Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01856-1/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DELLONAMAYE SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BOWMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1856-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 6
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

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

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

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

Plaintiff’s allegations concern a February 3, 2015 search of a “rehab live in facility” by 

Sacramento County probation officers. See ECF No. 1. He alleges generally that his Fourth 

Amendment rights were violated because of an unreasonable search and seizure. The named 

defendants include “Sacramento Sheriff, Sacramento Police Department, Sacramento Detectives, 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 6
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

DA, Public Defenders, Judges, et al.” Id. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations are not 

sufficient to state a proper claim for relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 

support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief, the complaint must 

be dismissed. 

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; 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); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

He must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also plead 

facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. 

A municipal entity or its departments is liable under section 1983 only if plaintiff shows 

that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s 

policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); 

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic 

Festival Ass'n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008). Local government entities may not be held 

vicariously liable under section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory 

of respondeat superior. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

State prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts taken in their 

official capacity. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123–24 (1997); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 6
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

509 U.S. 259, 269–70 (1993); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430–31 (1976) (holding 

that prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 for initiating prosecutions 

and presenting cases). 

Judges are also absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the 

jurisdiction of their courts . . . A judge loses absolute immunity only when [the judge] acts in the 

clear absence of all jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. 

Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 

In addition, plaintiff’s court-appointed attorneys cannot be sued under § 1983. See Polk 

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981) (public defenders do not act under color of state 

law for purposes of § 1983 when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions). And any potential 

claims for legal malpractice do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Franklin v. 

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). 

As relief, plaintiff asks to “be relieved of all charges . . . .” ECF No. 1, § IV. This request 

suggests that plaintiff’s intended claim for relief may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994). If plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a conviction or the fact of his 

confinement, he may not do so in this action unless he demonstrates that the conviction or 

sentence has been invalidated. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States 

Supreme Court held that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. 

Under Heck, the court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case 

would necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If plaintiff is claiming that his 

federal constitutional rights were violated and as a result he was convicted and incarcerated, 

plaintiff may not recover damages in this action unless he can prove that his conviction has been 

reversed. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 6
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

In addition, the court notes that plaintiff may be attempting to challenge a state court’s 

ruling through this civil rights action. However, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review or 

modify state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923); 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). “[L]ower federal 

courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court; only the 

United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.” Gottfried v. 

Medical Planning Services, 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041, 119 S.Ct. 

592 (1998); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Stated plainly, 

Rooker—Feldman bars any suit that seeks to disrupt or ‘undo’ a prior state-court judgment, 

regardless of whether the state-court proceeding afforded the federal-court plaintiff a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate her claims.”). 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that attempts to allege a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. Any amended complaint 

must cure the deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 5) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the Sheriff of Sacramento County filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The complaint 

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a 

cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United 

States Marshal. 

Dated: March 14, 2017. 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 6