Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06401/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06401-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alameda County
Defendant
Rodolfo Pulido
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODOLFO PULIDO, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 12-6401 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket # 4)

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that,

while he was recently detained at the Alameda County Jail, he discovered that 

Alameda County had failed to remove from its records a prior case against him

that was dismissed or expunged in 2007. Plaintiff seeks damages and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

Case 3:12-cv-06401-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 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

1

See, e.g., Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, et al., 834 F.2d 1093, 1097 (1st

Cir. 1987) (no due process claim for false information maintained by police

department); Pruett v. Levi, 622 F.2d 256, 258 (6th Cir. 1980) (mere existence of

inaccuracy in FBI criminals files does not state constitutional claim).

2

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

The inaccuracy of records compiled or maintained by the government is

not, standing alone, sufficient to state a claim of constitutional injury under the

Due Process Clause. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-714 (1976).1

Under California law, an inmate questioning the accuracy of any material

contained in a record of his criminal history must file a written request with the

agency holding the record. See Cal. Penal Code § 13324(a). After a formal

request and denial by the agency, the inmate must refer the matter to

administrative adjudication in accord with the rules of the local governing body. 

See id. § 13324(c). These regulations do not contain substantive predicates or

mandatory language requiring any specific outcome when a determination on a

request to amend information in a person's criminal record is made. The

regulations state no criteria, for example, which must be found before a request

will be granted or denied. A provision that merely provides procedural

requirements, even if mandatory, cannot provide the basis for a constitutionally

protected liberty interest. See Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490

U.S. 454, 461-62 (1989); Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993).

Case 3:12-cv-06401-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim of constitutional injury under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

But based solely on his affidavit of poverty, plaintiff's request to proceed IFP

(docket # 4) is GRANTED.

The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this order,

terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 3, 2013 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Pulido, R.12-6401.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:12-cv-06401-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 3