Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01731/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01731-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERTA LEE PAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF 

FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01731-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) Plaintiff has 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) No other parties have appeared 

in the action.

Plaintiff‟s complaint is before the Court for screening.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 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

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is detained at Fresno County Jail. He names the following Defendants: (1) 

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, (2) Fresno City Police, (3) 

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 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

Fresno County Sherriff‟s Office (Jail Division) Administration, and (4) Sherriff Margaret 

Mims. 

Plaintiff‟s allegations can be summarized essentially as follows:

Plaintiff was arrested by the Fresno Police Department. The Fresno Police 

Department does not exist. The officers were impersonating Fresno City Police, but 

actually were fake, unauthorized officers from Los Angeles County.

The arresting officers made false charges against Plaintiff and printed a fake 

arrest report. Plaintiff received a booking report that listed no pending charges or bail. 

Plaintiff was not read his rights. He was not permitted to call his family.

The Sherriff‟s Office should have checked the credentials of the arresting officers, 

but did not. Thus, the Sherriff‟s Office and Sherriff Mims conspired with the fake officers 

to detain Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was charged twice for each of the fake crimes the fake officers alleged he 

committed.

Plaintiff requests that “men of authority” free him from the Fresno County Jail.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Younger Abstention

To the extent Plaintiff seeks intervention in ongoing state criminal proceedings, 

this Court must abstain. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should 

not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory 

relief except under special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); 

Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the 

applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781 

F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) ( “When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the

Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 

action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a 

substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); Gilbertson v. 

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention applies to actions for 

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 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

damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). Younger abstention is required 

when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve 

important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 

raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass‟n, 

457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th 

Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the Court will abstain from interfering with Plaintiff‟s ongoing state 

proceeding. 

B. Heck Bar

To the extent Plaintiff‟s state criminal proceedings may have concluded, Plaintiff 

should note that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of their 

confinement in a section 1983 action. Their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the favorable 

termination rule or the Heck bar, this exception to § 1983‟s otherwise broad scope 

applies whenever state prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their confinementeither directly through an injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a 

judicial determination that necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State's custody.”

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81. “[A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior 

invalidation) if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of 

confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-82; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) 

(until and unless favorable termination of the conviction or sentence occurs, no cause of 

action under § 1983 exists).

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should note that a challenge to the fact or 

duration of his confinement cannot be raised in a § 1983 action.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff's claims are barred under Younger and Heck. The Court will grant Plaintiff 

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts 

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 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

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to „state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate 

that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones 

v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 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. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form and 

(2) a copy of his Complaint, filed November 5, 2014;

2. Plaintiff‟s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 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

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure 

to comply with a court order subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01731-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 6