Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00470-0/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 

JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0470-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 and a request for appointment of counsel. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Request for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 7
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

to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 

circumstances in this case. 

III. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[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. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 7
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

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

IV. Plaintiff’s Allegations1

On March 14, 2013, plaintiff entered a no contest plea for second degree burglary, a nonviolent crime. Pursuant to the plea agreement, plaintiff was released from jail with credit for time 

served. Solano County Superior Court Judge Wendy Getty ordered plaintiff to report to the 

parole office within two business days of his release. Plaintiff reported to the parole office as 

instructed. Even though plaintiff was not a sexual or violent offender, he was placed on “high 

control” parole. Plaintiff was out on parole for over seven months. During that time, he was 

arrested and re-incarcerated on four occasions for parole violations. In October of 2013, 

plaintiff’s public defender found out that plaintiff should never have been placed on parole in 

light of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act. On October 23, 2013, Solano County Superior 

Court Judge Robert Bowers agreed that there was a court error and plaintiff was discharged from 

parole. Plaintiff wishes to hold “the defendants” liable for violations of his rights to due process 

and equal protection, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff names 

approximately fifteen defendants. 

V. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 7) pursuant to § 1915A 

and finds that it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. As discussed below, plaintiff has 

not adequately linked any defendant to his federal claims for relief or demonstrated that he was 

unconstitutionally detained. Plaintiff’s state law claims must be dismissed because he has not 

 1

 The court will screen plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 7), which supercedes any 

earlier filed complaints. 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 7
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

alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

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

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009). He must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also 

plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. Here, 

plaintiff names approximately fifteen defendants, but none of those defendants are adequately 

linked to his claims. 

“The Constitution permits states to deprive a person of liberty as long as the person first 

receives due process. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 

at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Stein v. Ryan, 662 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A]n individual has a liberty interest in being 

free from incarceration absent a criminal conviction.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

683 (9th Cir. 2001). “Thus, the loss of liberty caused by an individual’s mistaken incarceration 

after the lapse of a certain amount of time gives rise to a claim under the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. Such a claim may arise when the defendants knew or should 

have known the detainee was entitled to release and (1) the circumstances indicated to the 

defendants that further investigation was warranted, or (2) the defendants denied the detainee 

access to the courts for an extended period of time. Id.; Rivera v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 

384, 391 (9th Cir. 2014). And “[s]ince imprisonment is punitive, officials who detain a person 

may violate that person’s rights under the Eighth Amendment if they act with deliberate 

indifference to the prisoner’s liberty interest.” Id. at 1118. 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Plaintiff does not plead any facts showing that any named defendant knew or should have 

known that he should not have been placed on parole (or probation). He also fails to plead facts 

showing circumstances that should have prompted any defendant to investigate the propriety of 

his status as a parolee, or that he was denied access to the courts to challenge the propriety 

himself. Even if he had made such allegations, plaintiff still fails to state a procedural due 

process claim because he appears to have received the process that was due. He alleges that he 

was present in court when the judge ordered him to report to parole following his release. Thus, 

although the judge may have erred, plaintiff appears to have had a meaningful opportunity to be 

heard before being placed on parole. When his public defender realized the court’s error in 

October of 2013, plaintiff promptly appeared in court and was immediately discharged from 

parole. 

In addition, plaintiff cannot state a proper state law tort claim because he has not alleged 

compliance with the California Torts Claims Act, also known as the Government Claims Act or 

GCA. The GCA requires that a party seeking to recover money damages from a public entity or 

its employees submit a claim to the entity before filing suit in court, generally no later than six 

months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945, 950.2 (emphasis 

added). Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement of the GCA but is an 

element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 

(2007). Thus, when a plaintiff asserts a claim subject to the GCA, he must affirmatively allege 

compliance with the claim presentation procedure, or circumstances excusing such compliance, in 

his complaint. Id. The requirement that a plaintiff asserting claims subject to the GCA must 

affirmatively allege compliance with the claims filing requirement applies in federal court as 

well. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff 

concedes that he did not file a timely claim in accordance with the GCA. ECF No. 7 at 11-12. 

Thus, any purported state law claims must be dismissed. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint to allege a cognizable legal 

theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 7
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

se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should 

plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the 

claims and allegations against each defendant. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. The amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above and also 

adhere to the following requirements: 

An amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

The amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

VI. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 6, 8) is denied without 

prejudice. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

4. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Second 

Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in this action 

being dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint 

stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the 

United States Marshal. 

DATED: January 27, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 7