Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02956/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02956-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip H. Beck
Defendant
Lanell Martin
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANELL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILLIP H. BECK,

Defendant.

No. 2: 14-cv-2956 KJM KJN P

ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 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

2

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

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 when it is based on an 

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

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), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 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

3

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

The only named defendant is Dr. Beck. Plaintiff appears to challenge a ruling made in a 

previous action he filed in this court against defendant Beck, 2:12-cv-00421 LKK JFM P. In 12-

00421, the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton granted defendant Beck’s motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See 2:12-cv-00421 

LKK JFM P, at ECF No. 32. Judge Karlton adopted findings and recommendations issued by 

Magistrate Judge Moulds, finding that plaintiff had not stated potentially colorable claims for 

relief pursuant to the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at ECF No 26. Both Judge Moulds 

and Judge Karlton noted that mere negligence does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment 

claim. Id., at ECF Nos. 26, 32.

In the instant action, plaintiff appears to argue that he raised a state law claim in 12-cv00421, which the court failed to rule on. Plaintiff alleges that after the dismissal of 12-cv-00421, 

he filed a state court action raising his state law claims against defendant Beck. Plaintiff alleges 

that the state court rejected these claims as time barred. Plaintiff argues that these claims were 

not time barred when he raised them in 12-cv-00421. 

The undersigned cannot address orders issued by Judge Moulds and Judge Karlton in 

2:12-cv-00421. In other words, plaintiff may not litigate orders issued by Judge Moulds and 

Judge Karlton in 12-cv-00421 in the instant action. Instead, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint in the instant action raising all of his claims against defendant Beck, based on both 

constitutional and state law. If the amended complaint raises only state law claims, this action 

will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (describing circumstances under which federal courts 

may handle state law claims only). 

The undersigned also observes that if plaintiff’s amended complaint restates the 

constitutional claims previously raised against defendant Beck in 12-00421, they will most likely 

be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. While Judge Karlton did not state whether 

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 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

4

dismissal of 12-0421 was with or without prejudice, generally, “a dismissal for failure to state a 

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is presumed ... to be rendered with prejudice.” McLean v. United 

States, 566 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by 

parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 

147, 153 (1979). Thus, a claimant may not seek to re-litigate claims decided previously on their 

merits. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, 

res judicata “precludes the litigation of ‘any claims that were raised or could have been raised’ in 

a previous lawsuit.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.

2001). The doctrine is applicable “whenever there is “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final 

judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Stratosphere Litig. L.L.C. v. Grand 

Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1143 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Notably, “[i]f a court is 

on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua 

sponte, even though the defense has not been raised.” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 

(2000). 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each 

named defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is 

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. 

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 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

5

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441. (ECF No. 3.) 

The relief plaintiff seeks in this motion is unclear. To the extent plaintiff seeks removal of a 

pending state court action to this court, only defendants are authorized to file motions for 

removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for removal is denied. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 9.) In this motion, 

plaintiff requests that the court provide him with copies of all records from the state court case 

regarding which he filed his motion for removal. Because the motion for removal is denied, the 

request for documents from the state court action is denied.

Plaintiff also filed a motion to set aside a state court judgment. (ECF No. 10.) In this 

motion, plaintiff requests that this court set aside the state court judgment finding his state law 

claims against defendant Beck time barred. The undersigned does not have the authority to 

overturn this state court judgment. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine precludes a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a case that essentially appeals 

a state court judgment). 

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 5 of 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

6

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for removal (ECF No. 3) is denied;

6. Plaintiff’s motion for writ of certiorari (ECF No. 9) is denied;

7. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the state court judgment (ECF No. 10) is denied.

Dated: February 5, 2015

Mart2956.14

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 6 of 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

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANELL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILLIP H. BECK,

Defendant.

No. 2: 14-cv-2956 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:14-cv-02956-KJM-KJN Document 11 Filed 02/05/15 Page 7 of 7