Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01436-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sebastian P. Beltran
Plaintiff
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
County Jail of San Bernardino
Defendant
Sullivan
Defendant
Superior Court of California
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEBASTIAN P. BELTRAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01436-LJO-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:

(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES 

TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT 

TO THIS COURT ISSUING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISTRICT 

JUDGE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER

(ECF NO. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Sebastian P. Beltran, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on

October 9, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it 

fails to state a claim because it fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 

20.

The Court notes that it is not determining that any of Plaintiff’s claims are without 

merit. Instead, as discussed below, the Court has determined that Plaintiff should file an

amended complaint that includes only related claims. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue unrelated 

claims, he should file separate complaints in separate cases. Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose 

to stand on this complaint, in which case this Court will issue findings and recommendations to 

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 8
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

the assigned district judge, recommending that this case be dismissed for the reasons set forth 

below.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates 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 inmate 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).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint is required to 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere 

possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a 

plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted 

inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 

pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal.

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s complaint lists a myriad of claims under three broad categories. The incidents 

alleged in these claims occurred over a period of more than twenty years, and also appear to 

have occurred in at least three different institutions: San Bernardino County Jail; an unnamed 

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 8
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

prison where Plaintiff was incarcerated after he was sentenced and until nine years ago; and the 

California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, where Plaintiff has been incarcerated for the 

past nine years. Plaintiff names as defendants the Superior Court of California for the County 

of San Bernardino; the County Jail of San Bernardino; the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation; and Mr. Sullivan, Warden. 

It appears that most of Plaintiff’s claims are unrelated. For example, Plaintiff raises 

claims about his arrest on June 30, 1996, and the removal of his daughter and step-daughter and 

the placement of those children into foster care on that same date, and names a single 

individual—Officer Morales—in relation to those claims but has not named Officer Morales as 

a defendant. Plaintiff raises claims about his arrest three years later in 1999-2000 by Officer 

Morales. Plaintiff also raises claims about his subsequent trial, the representation provided by 

appointed counsel, the evidence against him, his conviction, and his sentence, but does not 

name a specific defendant in relation to those claims. Plaintiff raises claims against the CDCR 

about the conditions of his confinement at what appear to be two different prisons over an 

approximate twenty-year period, including claims about denial of visitation with his children, 

the adequacy of mental/dental care, denial of access to the law library and his legal materials, 

interference with legal mail, and failure to protect Plaintiff’s confidential information. Finally, 

Plaintiff raises a claim regarding the denial of parole/failure to release Plaintiff from 

confinement.

III. PLEADING STANDARDS

As set forth above, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a 

complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint is not required to include 

detailed factual allegations, it must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint must 

specifically state what each defendant did that violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

A complaint must also comply with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 18 and 20. Under these rules, a plaintiff may not proceed on a myriad of unrelated 

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 8
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

claims against different defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2). “The 

controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an 

original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim, may join, either as independent 

or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an 

opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated

claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of 

morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners 

pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of 

frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).” K'napp v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2013 WL 5817765, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal., Oct. 29, 2013), aff'd sub nom. K'napp v. California Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation,

599 Fed. Appx. 791 (9th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons... may be joined in one 

action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in 

the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 

arise in the action.”).

IV. APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

As summarized above, most of Plaintiff’s claims involve separate occurrences at 

different times, against different defendants, and at different institutions of confinement. At 

least some of the incidents occurred years apart. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.

Plaintiff has also failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as to most if 

not all of his claims because the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of his 

claims showing that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s complaint lists 

various claims, but does not say what each individual defendant did, so the Court cannot 

evaluate whether Plaintiff has described something that violates his constitutional rights.

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 8
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

Because Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with the above authorities and principles, 

and because “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a), the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint. In the amended complaint,

Plaintiff should pick a claim to proceed on. He may also proceed on related claims in 

compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. As to his unrelated claims, if 

Plaintiff wishes to proceed on those claims he should file separate actions. For any claim on 

which Plaintiff chooses to proceed, he must include a short and plain statement of what each 

defendant did, such as what he or she said or wrote or did to Plaintiff. Then Plaintiff should try 

to explain why he believes that action, or lack of action, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights.

Alternatively, instead of filing an amended complaint Plaintiff may choose to stand on 

this complaint, in which case this Court will issue findings and recommendations to the 

assigned district judge, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for the 

reasons laid out in this order.

In the event Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Court provides Plaintiff 

with the following additional guidance that appears to be applicable to some of the claims that 

Plaintiff seeks to raise.1

A. Habeas Proceedings

“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or 

duration of his confinement. He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state 

relief) instead.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Here, some of Plaintiff’s claims are challenging his underlying conviction, his

sentence, the denial of his parole, and his continued confinement. These claims challenging the 

fact or duration of his confinement must be brought through a federal habeas action (or 

 

1

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he does not need to include any 

attachments. To the extent he chooses to include attachments, he is cautioned that he must fully 

redact any identifying information about minors or other alleged victims, and any unnecessary 

graphic descriptions of alleged sexual abuse.

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 8
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

appropriate state action). They cannot be brought in a § 1983 action. The Court will direct the 

Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a § 2254 habeas complaint form that Plaintiff may 

use if he chooses to proceed with his claims challenging the fact or duration of his 

confinement.2

B. Favorable Termination Rule – Heck v. Humphrey

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the United States Supreme Court 

held that to recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a 

conviction or sentence invalid,” a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence 

was reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. This “favorable-termination rule” laid out in 

Heck preserves the rule that claims which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity 

of a conviction or sentence, must be brought by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

after exhausting appropriate avenues for relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-751 

(2004). 

“The applicability of the favorable termination rule turns solely on whether a successful 

§ 1983 action would necessarily render invalid a conviction, sentence, or administrative 

sanction that affected the length of the prisoner’s confinement.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). In Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996), the court 

held that, “if a criminal conviction arising out of the same facts and is fundamentally 

inconsistent with the unlawful behavior for which section 1983 damages are sought, the 1983 

action must be dismissed.” But if the “action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the 

invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be 

allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

Here, some of Plaintiff’s claims appear to be challenging his underlying conviction and 

sentence. Again, to the extent Plaintiff is challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, 

such challenges must be brought through a petition for habeas corpus. To the extent Plaintiff is 

not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, but brings claims that, if successful,

 

2 Petitions for habeas relief under § 2254 are subject to separate exhaustion and statute 

of limitations requirements. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 6 of 8
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

would necessarily render his conviction or sentence invalid, those claims can proceed only if 

Plaintiff demonstrates that the underlying conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise 

invalidated.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim 

because it does not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. The Court 

notes that it is not determining the merit of any of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time 

to file an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, see

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be 

complete without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, see Local Rule 220. Therefore, 

in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Additionally, in the amended complaint, Plaintiff should pick a claim to proceed on. He 

may also proceed on related claims in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 

20.3 As to his unrelated claims, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed on those claims he should file 

separate actions.

Plaintiff should also note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is 

not for the purpose of changing the nature of this lawsuit or adding more unrelated claims. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

 

3 Plaintiff may not bring claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and claims for relief 

under § 1983 in the same action. He must, instead, bring such claims in separate actions.

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 7 of 8
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

Alternatively, instead of filing an amended complaint Plaintiff may choose to stand on 

this complaint, in which case this Court will issue findings and recommendations to the 

assigned district judge, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff both a § 1983 civil rights complaint form

and a § 2254 habeas complaint form; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

either:

a. File a First Amended Complaint; or

b. Notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the complaint, subject to this 

Court issuing findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge 

consistent with this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:19-cv-01436-LJO-EPG; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, 

(1) file an amended complaint or (2) notify the Court that he wishes to stand on 

this complaint, the Court will issue findings and recommendations to the 

assigned district court judge recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01436-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 01/22/20 Page 8 of 8