Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02569/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02569-1/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 

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN JOHNSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2569 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se with a putative civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See 

ECF No. 4. This order dismisses plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend for failure to state 

a cognizable claim, and denies plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 

 This court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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 or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in 

Case 2:15-cv-02569-AC Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and 

an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 The defendants named in the instant complaint include Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, 

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, Sacramento Sheriff’s Officer Cooper, David Serna, 

Charles Sicneros, Jim Cook, and the “Captain at Sac PD North.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint 

alleges state law claims including “defamation of character, intentional tort, also in violation of a 

2007 plea agreement.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges in part, id. at 3-4: 

I was blasted in the media in 2013 by state parole officers and it has 

endangered me and alienated me in my community. I was attacked 

where police came multiple times, nothing was done, I was kicked 

out of the DA’s for attempting to make a report. I did file police 

reports. I also sent the DA a portfolio for self-defense since I felt 

imminent danger was present and the law was negligent. 

I want to have my day in court to address the issues I think violate 

federal law and the constitutional rights I feel were violated. I want 

to change policies and hold the members involved accountable. 

Allow me leave to obtain evidence to prove where my rights were 

violated and appeal if this court denies my request. I also want 

compensation for pain and suffering. 

. . . . [T]he court refuses to give me due process, by having me 

present my case verbally in person and only addressed the question 

of whether due to a relation to a World War hero, does that grant 

me immunity? And further if I registered on Geneva and claimed 

my government is denying me due process and equal protections if 

a person claims a[n] officer attacked him, for which in 2004 Deputy 

Spade broke my nose! The main jail has an incident report dated in 

April and I received reconstructive surgery by the jail. [E]very 

claim, report, incident and description can be reviewed by 

discovery. The point is that the law ignored me when I filed police 

reports, I felt in danger, there is bias because I have a record . . . . 

 Plaintiff filed a similar complaint in this court that was found frivolous and dismissed 

without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. See Taylor v. Jones, Case No. 2:15-cv-1907 

EFB P, ECF Nos. 12, 14. While the instant complaint does not present the same level of 

“fanciful, fantastic, or delusional” allegations set forth in plaintiff’s prior complaint, the 

undersigned finds that the instant case is also frivolous and fails to state a potentially cognizable 

federal legal claim. Plaintiff’s wide-ranging factual allegations also fail to link the alleged 

Case 2:15-cv-02569-AC Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

violation of his rights with the alleged misconduct of any specific defendant. The only exception 

is plaintiff’s 2004 allegation against Deputy Spade, which is clearly time-barred.1

Plaintiff is informed that, to state a claim under Section 1983, he must allege: (1) the 

violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by 

a person acting under 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). Plaintiff must allege that a specific defendant 

engaged in specifically identified conduct demonstrating his or her personal involvement in the 

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights; that is, plaintiff must allege a direct causal connection or 

link between each defendant’s challenged conduct and the violation of plaintiff’s rights. See 

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

Cir. 1978). 

The undersigned finds that further amendment of the complaint would be futile. The court 

is persuaded that plaintiff is unable to allege any facts, based upon the circumstances he 

challenges, that would state a cognizable federal claim. “A district court may deny leave to 

amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v.CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2013); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Courts are not required to 

grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 

Due to the dismissal of this action on screening, the court will deny as moot plaintiff’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, plaintiff is informed that, under the “three 

strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, if three or more of his federal cases are 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim, he will be barred from obtaining 

 

1

 Federal courts apply the state’s personal injury statute of limitations, subject to any state tolling 

provisions that are not inconsistent with federal law. Azer v. Connell, 306 F.3d 930, 935-36 (9th 

Cir. 2002). The California statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. Cal. 

Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Additionally, in California, for prisoners serving less than a life sentence, the statute of limitations 

is tolled for two years. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a); Johnson v. State of California, 207 F.3d 

650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000). It is unclear whether plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of this two-year 

tolling provision, if he has not been incarcerated for the entire period, and may therefore be 

limited the two-year statute of limitations. It is clear, however, that plaintiff’s challenge to an 

incident that occurred in 2004 is time-barred.

Case 2:15-cv-02569-AC Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

in forma pauperis status in a new case absent a showing that he was “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim, 

a defect that cannot in this case be cured by amendment. 

2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 17, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02569-AC Document 9 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 4