Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00711-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE RAY BROWN, No. 07-cv-00711 LJO TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON

COGNIZABLE § 1983 CLAIM AND FALSE

IMPRISONMENT CLAIM WITHIN TWENTY

DAYS 

v.

ERIC LANTZ, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________/

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

On May 14, 2007, plaintiff Bennie Ray Brown, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights

action against Bakersfield Police Department Officers Eric Lantz and Steve Wilson, in their individual

capacities. (Doc. 1). His corrected motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted on August

28, 2007. (Docs. 10, 12). 

Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed IFP, the court has “screened” his complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the dismissal of a case at any time if the court

determines that it (1) “is frivolous or malicious,” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted,” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii) and (iii). 

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 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

allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. The test for malice is a

subjective one that requires the court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good faith.

Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964,

968 n. 1(11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive suits filed by

plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may

be inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the defendants or abuse the judicial process by

relitigating claims decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C.Cir. 1981); if

it threatens violence or contains disrespectful references to theCourt, id.; or if it contains untrue material

allegations of fact or false statements made with knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey

v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

42 U.S.C. § 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). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights but merely provides

a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271

(1994). To state a cognizable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right protected by

the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a

person who acted under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that

defendants Lantz and Wilson, while acting under color of state law, violated his rights under the Fourth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they caused him to be falsely arrested and imprisoned for

possession of cocaine base on November 24, 2004. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff contends that the defendants

falsified the police report and committed perjury that resulted in his illegal arrest, and alleges that he

subsequently “suffered 214 days of confinement” before the Kern County Superior Court dismissed his

case on June 30, 2005. (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 5-7). Plaintiff seeks $140,000 in compensatory and punitive

damages. (Doc. 1, p. 7). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 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

1. § 1983 Claims.

Plaintiff’s first claim for § 1983 relief alleges a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Doc.

1, 7:8-11). The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and prohibits arrests without

probable cause or other justification. U.S. Const. Amend IV; United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,

417-424 (1976). “A claim of illegal arrest is cognizable under section 1983 for violation of the Fourth

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that the arrest was

without probable cause or justification.” Barsch v. Brann, 1996 WL 231023 *4 (N.D.Cal. April 29,

1996)(citations omitted). In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations state a cognizable claim for false arrest and

imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment. 

Plaintiff’s second claim for § 1983 relief alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

(Doc. 1,7:11-13). The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and its protections

apply only after conviction and sentence. U.S.Const. Amend VIII; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535

n.16 (1979) ; Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, because Plaintiff was a

pretrial detainee and was not convicted of the crime, he cannot proceed on a claim of cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a

cognizable § 1983 claim for false arrest and imprisonment under the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff’s third claim for § 1983 relief alleges a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights,

and appears to be directed only at defendant Lantz. (Doc. 1,7:14-21). The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment providesthat “[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.” U.S.Const., Amend. XIV §1. The Due Process Clause guarantees

procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process “protects individuals against the

deprivation of liberty or property by the government without due process.” Urbina v. Carson, 2007 WL

2814652 at *6 (E.D. Cal. September 25, 2007)(citation omitted). Substantive due process protects

individuals against arbitrary, capricious, or excessive action by the government, and “bar[s] certain

government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840 (1998)(citations omitted). In order to allege a cognizable

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 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

§ 1983 claim based on procedural due process, a plaintiff must allege a Constitutionally protected

liberty or property interest, deprivation of the interest by the government, and lack of process. Portman

v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to allege a cognizable § 1983

claim based on substantive due process, a plaintiff must allege that the government’s action was

arbitrary, capricious, or excessive, and that the plaintiff has a Constitutionally protected interest. See

Urbina, 2007 WL 2814652 at *5. 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that defendant Lantz violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment when Lantz allegedly “falsified probable cause to arrest and fabricated he saw plaintiff

discard a small bindle of rock cocaine . . . then testified at the preliminary proceedings it was not

cocaine.” (Doc. 1, 7:14-21). Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Lantz is based on lack of probable

cause to arrest. Pretrial liberty deprivations are governed by the Fourth Amendment. Albright v. Oliver,

510 U.S. 266, 273-274 (1994); see Barsch, 1996 WL 231023 at *3. There is no substantive right under

the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from criminal arrest and prosecution

without probable cause. Id. Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Lantz fail to state a cognizable

§ 1983 claim because they fail to allege the violation of a Constitutionally protected right. 

2. State Law Claim for False Arrest and Imprisonment.

Plaintiff also attempts to allege a state law cause of action for false arrest/false imprisonment

pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 236, 995(a)(1)(A)(B), 2(A)(B). (Doc. 1, 6:14-20). The state

statutes relied upon by Plaintiff for his state law cause of action do not provide a civil cause of action

for false arrest and imprisonment. Penal Code § 236 is a definition provision, and defines false

imprisonment as “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” Penal Code §§

995(a)(1)(A)(B) and (a)(2)(A)(B) describe state law criminal procedures to set aside a legally

insufficient accusatory criminal pleading. In order to state a cognizable civil claim, Plaintiff must allege

a cognizable civil cause of action. Plaintiff alleges claims for false arrest and imprisonment; however

under California law, “[f]alse arrest and false imprisonment are not separate torts. False arrest is but one

way of committing false imprisonment.” Collins v. City and County of San Francisco, 50 Cal. App. 3d

671, 673 (1975). The elements of a civil cause of action for false imprisonment under California law are

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 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

“(1) the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, and (3) for an

appreciable period of time.” Blaxland v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, 323 F. 3d

1198, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003). Despite the fact that Plaintiff relies on criminal law and procedure statutes

as the bases for his false arrest and imprisonment claim, the Court concludes that the factual allegations

in the complaint are sufficient to allege a cognizable claim for false imprisonment under state law. 

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim for relief against

defendants Lantz and Wilson based on alleged Fourth Amendment deprivations, and a cognizable state

law cause of action against defendant Lantz and Wilson for alleged false imprisonment . However, the

Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not state cognizable § 1983 claims against either of the

defendants based on alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment deprivations. The Court will provide

Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

this Order, if Plaintiff wishes to do so. 

In the event Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed against

defendants Lantz and Wilson only on the § 1983 claim based on Fourth Amendment deprivations and

the state law cause of action for false imprisonment, Plaintiff may so notify the court in writing. The

Court will then Issue Findings and Recommendations recommending that the remaining claims be

dismissed from the action, and will forward Plaintiff two summonses and two USM-285 forms to fill

out and return to the Court. Upon receipt of those documents, the Court will direct the United States

Marshal to initiate service of process upon defendants Lantz and Wilson. 

In the event Plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, Plaintiff is advised that Rule 15-220

of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California requires that

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

an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F. 2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function

in this case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 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

ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Within twenty (20)days from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff must either:

A. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

Order, or 

B. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and

wishes to proceed against defendants Lantz and Wilson only on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claim based on Fourth Amendment deprivations and the state law cause of action for

false imprisonment.

2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00711-LJO -TAG Document 14 Filed 10/09/07 Page 6 of 6