Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00899/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00899-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LEE McCULLOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY O’MALLEY, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-0899-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Dkt Nos. 6, 15

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint is now before 

the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for the Court to take 

jurisdiction and a motion for a temporary restraining order. 

I

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 

 1 The Court will review his complaint and supplemental complaint. 

Docket Nos. 5, 7.

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a 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). 

II

Plaintiff alleges that several district attorneys and public 

defenders are conspiring to have him prosecuted.

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court 

should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 

granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). 

Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal 

prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or 

harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is 

"flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 

prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and 

inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special 

circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal 

court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every 

"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is 

applied). 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary 

circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in federal court 

does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer 

irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. 

Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 

401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by 

reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 

(1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of 

honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. See

Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 713 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in "pursuing a 

criminal prosecution" insofar as he acts within his role as an 

"advocate for the State" and his actions are "intimately 

associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). But prosecutors 

are entitled only to qualified immunity when they perform 

investigatory or administrative functions, or are essentially 

functioning as police officers or detectives. Buckley v. 

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). 

A public defender does not act under color of state law, an 

essential element of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when 

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions, such as entering 

pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining 

witnesses, and making closing arguments. Polk County v. Dodson, 

454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981). It matters not that the public 

defender failed to exercise independent judgment or that he was 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

employed by a public agency; it is the nature and context of the 

function performed by the public defender that is determinative 

under Polk County. Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 

465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Action under color of state law can be found if a plaintiff 

can plead and prove facts which show that the public defender 

conspired with state officials. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 

914, 919-20 (1984).

Plaintiff names as defendants several district attorneys and 

public defenders and alleges that they are corrupt and are 

engaged in a conspiracy to prosecute him. He contends that the 

evidence against him in the criminal prosecution is fabricated 

and planted. Plaintiff seeks the defendants to be arrested, his 

criminal case to be suspended, to be released from jail and 

compensation of four million dollars.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. To obtain 

Court intervention, Plaintiff must discuss why Younger abstention 

is not appropriate. To obtain money damages Plaintiff must 

present sufficient facts showing that Defendants are not entitled 

to immunity. Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide 

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 9
5

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

Northern District of California

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has 

explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While 

legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are wellpleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity 

and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 

entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009).

III

Plaintiff has also filed a motion (Docket No. 6) for the 

Court to assume jurisdiction of the state case. Plaintiff may be 

seeking removal pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1443 which 

provides:

Any of the following civil actions or 

criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State 

court may be removed by the defendant to the 

district court of the United States for the 

district and division embracing the place 

where it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or 

cannot enforce in the courts of such State a 

right under any law providing for the equal 

civil rights of citizens of the United States 

or within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority 

derived from any law providing for equal 

rights, or for refusing to do any act on the

ground that it would be inconsistent with 

such law.

28 U.S.C. § 1443. A petition for removal pursuant to § 1443 must 

comply with several procedural requirements. Specifically, a 

petitioner is required to file a short and plain statement of the 

ground for removal with a copy off all process, pleadings and 

orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Absent good cause, a 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

petitioner must file the petition within thirty days after his 

arraignment or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier. § 

1455(b)(1). 

To remove a case under § 1443, a petitioner must meet a twopronged test. First, "it must appear that the right allegedly 

denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal law 

'providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial 

equality.'" Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) 

(quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)); see also 

Davis v. Superior Court of California, 464 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 

1972) (removal of state prosecution to federal court under § 1443 

is specific and extremely narrow; claims must relate to statutes 

explicitly protecting equal racial civil rights). Second, it 

must appear that the removal petitioner is denied or cannot 

enforce the specified federal right in the state courts. See

Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219; Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 

1230, 1233 (9th Cir. 1986). If Plaintiff seeks removal he should 

file a separate action in the Court addressing the standards 

discussed above.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “The 

proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires 

a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

To show irreparable harm, the “plaintiff must show that he 

is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete 

and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the 

challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a 

favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citing 

Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), 

Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181 (2000)). In sum, an injunction “may 

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction repeats the 

same allegations of the complaint. For the same reasons above, 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm or that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 

The motion is denied.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 6, 15) are DENIED for 

the reasons discussed above.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must state clearly 

how each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 

634. The pleading must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must 

file all of his claims in one complaint and not present them 

piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other documents. 

Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within twentyeight days of this order will result in the dismissal of this 

action. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled.").

4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

Northern District of California

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\McCullom0899.dwlta.docx

5/2/2016

Case 3:16-cv-00899-TEH Document 17 Filed 05/03/16 Page 9 of 9