Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100526_0007068.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 22:17:03
Document Index: 158961019

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254']

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." Id. 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 Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Plaintiff's complaint was filed on the form used by the Northern District. In the caption of the complaint, plaintiff lists as defendants Laurance Smith, John Renwick, Nancy Ramirez-Sally Domingues, John Foster, and Mark McCarthy. (Id.) Plaintiff identifies these defendants as public defender, attorney, district attorneys, detective and parole agent. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges these defendants subjected plaintiff to "cruel and unusual punishment by false, testimony, perjured and fabricated evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process and equal rights violations, and vindictive and misconduct of prosecution all in concert." (Id.)
As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). A civil rights action, on the other hand, is appropriate for challenges to the conditions of an inmate's confinement. Id. at 499.
Plaintiff's allegations as to these named defendants are more appropriately brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Plaintiff is advised that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent's counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).*fn1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).
Plaintiff will be provided with the forms necessary to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.*fn2 If plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies through filing in the California Supreme Court and wishes this action to proceed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court will vacate the order requiring payment of the $350.00 filing fee once plaintiff files the petition.
However, it appears plaintiff may also seek to pursue a civil rights action. Attached to the complaint is a document entitled "Statement of Case." In this document, plaintiff sets forth a laundry list of allegations that took place in three different institutions concerning various defendants, none of whom were named as defendants in the caption of the complaint.
Plaintiff also raises various allegations concerning medical care at DVI. In order to state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Such a claim has two elements; "the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991).
Mere negligence is insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). "Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment." Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to appropriate medical care also do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff may also be attempting to file a civil rights action alleging he was unconstitutionally imprisoned. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that a civil rights action concerning an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof "that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, the court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff's favor in this case would necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Id.; see also Osborne v. District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial District, 423 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (Heck test applies to civil rights actions for injunctive relief as well as those for money damages).
The court finds the allegations concerning conditions of confinement in plaintiff's complaint so vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiffs claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff must clearly identify the named defendants. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
Finally, plaintiff has provided conflicting information as to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies, i.e. pursuing his grievance through the third level or Director's level of review. Although he marked the question "Did you present the facts in your complaint for review through the grievance procedure?" as "Yes," he claimed he did not submit any grievances because he feared retaliation from DVI staff. (Complt. at 1-2.) It appears he may have answered this section with regard to his claims that are more appropriately brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He did append a first level health care response regarding his medical claim concerning Hep-C and eye floaters and flashers dated December 23, 2008. (Complt. at 13.) However, it is unclear whether he pursued that grievance through the Director's level of review.
3. Plaintiff's claims challenging his parole violation or subsequent conviction more appropriately brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff's civil rights complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint, filed on the form used by this district. 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." The amended complaint must address only claims concerning conditions of confinement, not claims challenging his underlying conviction or parole violation. Plaintiff may only raise claims he has exhausted through the Director's level of review. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff the forms necessary to file a civil rights complaint and the packet necessary to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order filed Amended Complaint OR