Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00239-5/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

ROCHELLE WESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRISTIN CRUZ,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0239 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and proceeding in 

forma pauperis. Plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States 

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

On August 24, 2015, plaintiff’s amended and second amended complaints were dismissed 

with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed a third amended complaint.

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 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 fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 24 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In her third amended complaint, plaintiff again challenges the fact that she is in custody. 

On two occasions, the court informed plaintiff that when a prisoner challenges the legality of 

custody and the relief sought is earlier or immediate release, the sole federal remedy is a writ of

habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Further, the court cannot grant 

federal habeas relief until state court remedies have been exhausted with respect to the claim 

providing a basis for relief. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 

768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). To the extent the claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint 

imply the invalidity of her incarceration, the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 487 (1994). 

Plaintiff also asserts she has been denied adequate medical care, but her claims are still 

too vague. Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute 

a violation of the prisoner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when the individual is 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 24 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id. Plaintiff has not alleged facts 

demonstrating deliberate indifference by a defendant to a serious medical need.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s third amended complaint must be dismissed. Because 

granting plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint appears futile at this point, leave to 

amend will not be granted and this action will be closed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. This case is closed.

Dated: March 7, 2016

1

west0239.dis(1)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 24 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 3