Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00624-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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	

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JACK CARTER, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

1:14-cv-00624-LJO-BAM 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(ECF No. 1) 

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 

Findings and Recommendations 

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 28, 2014, is 

currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Screening Requirement 

“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). 

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

Case 1:14-cv-00624-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id. 

II. Allegations in Complaint 

Plaintiff alleges that Jack Carter, Chief of Police Services for the Department of State 

Hospitals, deprived Plaintiff of his right to a fair trial by denying Plaintiff crime discovery and 

receipt of evidence in pending state court criminal matters. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a 

motion to compel the production of documents by Coalinga State Hospital, including police 

reports, and discovery regarding patients at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff’s complaint also 

appears to seek the return of documents from a Deputy District Attorney produced by Plaintiff in 

a criminal matter. Plaintiff alleges that he being denied the right to a fair trial in state court 

related to the denial of criminal discovery. 

III. Discussion 

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is not a short and plain statement of his claims showing that 

he is entitled to relief. It is disjointed, repetitive, and conclusory. Nonetheless, it is evident that 

Plaintiff is complaining about discovery in one or more state court criminal matters. 

2. Abstention 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, this court is barred from directly interfering with 

any ongoing criminal proceedings against Plaintiff in state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401 

U.S. 37, 46 & 48-50, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1980) 

Case 1:14-cv-00624-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 3
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

(exceptions to the general rule of federal abstention arise only in “cases of proven harassment or 

prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid 

conviction,” or “in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”); 

Oliver v. Pineschi, 2014 WL 1431709, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) (Younger abstention 

intended to apply where plaintiff seeks to have district court intervene in an ongoing criminal 

prosecution); Mansanares v. Arizona, 2011 WL 5924349, *6 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2011) (in most 

circumstances Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal court from directly interfering 

without ongoing criminal proceedings in state court). Further, the district court lacks jurisdiction 

over any request for discovery in Plaintiff’s state court criminal matter. Easley v. Jones, 2009 

WL 2152084, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2009). 

IV. Conclusion and Order 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted. The deficiencies at issue are not curable through 

amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s 

factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839, (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00624-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 3