Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00622/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00622-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Ell Shehee
Plaintiff
Meilca Villalobos
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEILCA VILLALOBOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00622 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT 

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 24, 

2014. He names Litigation Coordinator Meilca Villalobos as Defendant. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

Case 1:14-cv-00622-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 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

2

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff titles his complaint as a “Complaint for Injuries for Depriving/Dening [sic] the 

Withholding of Evidence.” The complaint is vague, but to the extent it can be understood, it appears 

Plaintiff is asking the court to grant a motion to compel documents in a separate state action. 

Plaintiff complains that he handed five packets of documents to a Deputy District Attorney while in 

Coalinga Superior Court. He states those five packets have not been returned to him. The balance 

of the complaint lists documents and exhibits that he is requesting.

Case 1:14-cv-00622-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 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

3

C. DISCUSSION

1. No Cause of Action

Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action under Section 1983. Plaintiff presents no violation of 

his constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. 

Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 

1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the 

complaint should be dismissed.

2. Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); 

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of 

Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and some causal 

connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue must exist. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. 

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

As noted above, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional or other federal 

rights. Further, he fails to link Defendant Villalobos with any action that purportedly violated his 

rights. 

3. Mandamus

Insofar as Plaintiff’s complaint can be construed as a petition for writ of mandamus directed 

at prison staff in order that he be provided the materials he seeks, he is not entitled to the requested 

relief. The All Writs Act provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of 

Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in the aid of their respective jurisdictions and 

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). While a writ of mandamus 

may be issued under the All Writs Act, “[m]andamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved 

for really extraordinary causes.’” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010) 

Case 1:14-cv-00622-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 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

4

(quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). 

In addition to jurisdictional issues arising from Plaintiff’s desire for a federal writ directed at 

state prison officials, see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380 (section 1651(a) codified the common-law writ of 

mandamus against a lower court); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Washington, 925 

F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (no jurisdiction to issue writ to a state court), Plaintiff cannot 

demonstrate (1) the absence of any other adequate means to attain relief and (2) a clear and 

indisputable right to the issuance of the writ, Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81.

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The deficiencies at issue are not curable through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the 

Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 

claim. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 

(21) days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00622-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/19/15 Page 4 of 4