Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Allen
Plaintiff
Constance Picciano
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE ALLEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1141 WBS EFB P 

vs.

CONSTANCE PICCIANO,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff’s declaration 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).

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds

that it does not state a cognizable claim against defendant.

Case 2:09-cv-01141-WBS -EFB Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s complaint states that he was convicted of first degree murder in 1972. He

claims that twenty years later, in 1992, he filed a civil rights action against one of the

prosecution’s witnesses in his murder trial. The witness was apparently represented by

defendant Picciano, a deputy attorney general. Plaintiff claims that defendant violated his due

process rights by filing a document containing false statements in his 1992 civil rights action. 

Plaintiff requests $2.5 million in punitive damages and that he be released from custody.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 556 (1974). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support a claim that he was

deprived of a protected interest without procedural due process. 

To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, prisoners must

prove an actual injury by showing that their efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning

their conviction or conditions of confinement has been hindered. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

350, 350-55 (1996). Plaintiff fails to point to an “actual injury” as a result of defendant’s

purported interference. 

Plaintiff requests that he be released from custody and appears to suggest that his 1972

conviction is invalid because the prosecution introduced falsified documents into evidence. 

However, the sole remedy in federal court for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of

confinement is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). To

recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm

caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or

called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 487. Plaintiff has not

Case 2:09-cv-01141-WBS -EFB Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 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

3

demonstrated that his conviction has been invalidated, and as such, his claim is not cognizable

under section 1983.

The court finds that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims for relief under

section 1983. Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint.

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a

defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff 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). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches,

explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses,

Case 2:09-cv-01141-WBS -EFB Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 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

4

summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming

dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton,

523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to

read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long,

rambling pleading, including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible

connection to the alleged constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against

many defendants very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

an order dismissing plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these

instructions. 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While

factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing an amended complaint he certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has

evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may impose

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Prison rules

require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may be punished by prison

Case 2:09-cv-01141-WBS -EFB Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 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

5

authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3005.

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his

claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies,

and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his action.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

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

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

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation this

action be 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. 

4. Plaintiff’s September 8, 2009 motion for a case management conference is denied as

premature. 

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01141-WBS -EFB Document 16 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 5