Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05135/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05135-0/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID STAHLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05135-JST (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Vista Detention Center in Vista, California, filed this pro se civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 

separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For 

the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks 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. 28 U.S.C. § 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).

Case 3:14-cv-05135-JST Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 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

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’ 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. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

II. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Oceanside Police Detective Steven Stracke and Oceanside 

Police Officer Steven Walter, without a warrant, monitored and intercepted plaintiff’s on-line 

communications. Plaintiff further alleges that Stracke and Walter used defendant Redwood City 

Police Detective David Stahler to enter plaintiff’s home, again without a warrant, and remove 

plaintiff’s electronics. According to the complaint, Stracke continued to obtain electronic

information pertaining to plaintiff, without a warrant, until he finally applied for a warrant in 

September 2014.

The allegations of the complaint suggest that the Heck rule applies to this case, but 

plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the court to make that determination. In Heck 

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held that in order to state a claim for 

damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm 

caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff 

asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been 

Case 3:14-cv-05135-JST Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reversed or declared invalid. See id. at 486-87. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a 

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under Section 1983. Id.

at 487. Such a damages claim will not be barred under Heck if the plaintiff has not yet been 

convicted, however. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 395 (2007) (Heck does not encompass 

the principle that “an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be 

brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside.”) Nonetheless, the claim should not go 

forward if the plaintiff’s criminal proceedings are still pending; rather, the court can “stay the civil 

action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” See at 394. 

The fact that plaintiff was in detention near Oceanside, California at the time he filed the 

complaint suggests that plaintiff may have been charged for a crime as a result of the on-line 

communications and personal electronics that he believes were illegally obtained by defendants 

employed by the Oceanside Police Department. If that is the situation, plaintiff needs to allege 

those facts and also needs to provide information as to whether the criminal charges are still 

pending, resulted in a conviction, or resulted in a dismissal. The absence of information about the 

reason for his arrest and the crime of which he has been charged or convicted prevent this Court 

from determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, whether it is barred by Heck, 

and/or whether it must be stayed under Wallace. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed 

with leave to amend. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must identify the reason he was arrested 

and identify the crime of which he has been charged or convicted that resulted from the allegedly 

warrantless search and seizure.

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must be filed

within thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order (C 14-5135 JST (PR)) and the words AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank civil 

rights form along with his copy of this order.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. “[A] 

plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the 

Case 3:14-cv-05135-JST Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff 

may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Defendants not named in an 

amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in dismissal of 

this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05135-JST Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 4