Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00116/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00116-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Megan Eixenberger
Defendant
Brent Lee Harding
Plaintiff

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT LEE HARDING,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEGAN EIXENBERGER,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0116 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. He has consented to have all matters in this 

action before a United State Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

Case 2:16-cv-00116-CKD Document 10 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court has conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s amended 

complaint. As with his original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint concerns the actions of 

the deputy district attorney who represented the State of California during criminal proceedings 

which culminated in plaintiff accepting a plea agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages. As plaintiff 

was informed with respect to his original complaint, a prisoner cannot proceed with a claim for 

damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which implies the invalidity of his criminal conviction. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Further, plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct are vague 

and would not otherwise amount to an actionable claim. In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. The 

court will not grant leave to amend a second time as it appears that would be futile. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:16-cv-00116-CKD Document 10 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted; and

2. This case is closed.

Dated: March 22, 2016

1

hard0116.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00116-CKD Document 10 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 3