Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03967/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

ERIC D. PERRY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NICOLE MCGUIRE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03967-JCS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against various state actors. 

His original complaint failed to state a claim for relief and was dismissed with leave to 

amend. The amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies of the first. Accordingly, 

this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

Case 3:15-cv-03967-JCS Document 10 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

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.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the 

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

B. Legal Claims 

The amended complaint, like the original, is disorganized, difficult to follow, and 

raises unrelated claims. When liberally construed, it appears plaintiff alleges that (1) seven 

unnamed Santa Clara County Sheriff deputies used excessive force on him; (2) his attorney 

“put him in incompetency proceedings”; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct; and 

(4) the trial court imposed an improper sentence. 

The amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. First, plaintiff fails to 

state a claim against the deputies. He was instructed in a prior order to name the specific 

persons and to allege specific facts showing that each deputy applied force maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm. This he fails to do. While he provides some names, he asserts 

only that he “believe[s]” that these persons “had something to do with this incident,” not 

that they were directly involved or responsible. (First Am. Compl. at 5.) He provides no 

details about the actions of any specific deputy. As such, plaintiff fails to plead factual 

content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendants are liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Accordingly, his excessive force claims are DISMISSED 

without prejudice. When plaintiff obtains the names of the deputies and can set forth 

specific facts regarding the actions of each one, he may move to reopen this action. 

Second, his other claims (against the prosecutor, his attorney and the trial court) 

Case 3:15-cv-03967-JCS Document 10 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

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 

rel

Fir

the

Cir

cas

are

all

act

ass

bee

ins

ent

Da

ate to the le

rst, a habeas

e legality or

r. 1991). P

se, not this 

Second

e barred by 

egedly unco

tions whose

serting a vio

en reversed

stant compl

This fe

ter judgmen

IT IS S

ated: March

egality and 

s petition, n

r duration o

laintiff asse

one, that he

d, his claim

Supreme C

onstitutiona

e unlawfuln

olation of 4

d or declared

aint contain

ederal civil 

nt in favor o

SO ORDER

h 21, 2016

duration of

not a civil ri

f one’s con

erts that he 

e should rai

s against th

Court case la

al convictio

ness would r

2 U.S.C. § 

d invalid. H

ns no such s

rights actio

of defendan

RED. 

3

f his confine

ights action

nfinement. S

has filed a h

ise such cla

he prosecuto

aw. In orde

on or term o

render a con

1983 must 

Heck v. Hum

showing. 

CONCLU

on is DISMI

nts, and clos

 

ement and a

n, is the app

See Badea 

habeas acti

aims. 

or, the trial 

er to state a 

of imprisonm

nviction or 

prove that 

mphrey, 512

USION

ISSED with

se the file. 

________

JOSEPH 

 Chief Ma

are DISMIS

propriate me

v. Cox, 931

on in this d

court and h

a claim for d

ment, or for

sentence in

the convict

2 U.S. 477,

hout prejud

__________

C. SPERO

agistrate Jud

SSED for tw

ethod of cha

1 F.2d 573, 

district. It is

his defense 

damages for

r other harm

nvalid, a pla

tion or sente

, 486-87 (19

ice. The C

_________

O 

dge 

wo reasons.

allenging 

574 (9th 

s in that 

attorney 

r an 

m caused by

aintiff 

ence has 

994). The 

lerk shall 

_

. 

y

Case 3:15-cv-03967-JCS Document 10 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

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 

ER

N

Dis

pla

dep

rec

Eri

Elm

701

Mi

Da

RIC D. PER

v. 

NICOLE MC

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

acing said co

positing said

ceptacle loca

ic D. Perry I

mwood Corr

1 S. Abel Str

ilpitas, CA 9

ated: March 2

RRY, 

Plaintiff, 

GUIRE, et a

Defendants

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n March 21, 

opy(ies) in a 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

D: EBC259 

rectional Fac

reet 

95035 

21, 2016 

UNITED

NORTHER

al., 

s. 

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

2016, I SER

postage paid

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

cility Bookin

4

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

RVED a true 

d envelope a

Mail, or by pla

.

ng #1402952

Su

Cl

By

K

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

and correct 

addressed to 

acing said co

29

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Karen Hom, D

Honorable JO

COURT 

IFORNIA 

15-cv-03967

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

copy(ies) of

the person(s

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

Deputy Clerk

OSEPH C. SP

7-JCS 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

f the attache

s) hereinafte

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

k to the 

PERO 

erk, U.S. 

ed, by 

er listed, by 

ffice delivery

Case 3:15-cv-03967-JCS Document 10 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 4