Adams v. San Francisco FBI

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 29, 2024·No. 5:23-cv-01041·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 HENRY DESEAN ADAMS, 7 Case No. 23-cv-01041 EJD (PR) Plaintiff, v. 9 10 SAN FRANCISCO FBI, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983 against an agent of the FBI, a deputy district attorney for Contra Costa 16 County, deputies of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, and medical staff at 17 the Martinez Detention Facility. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The Court dismissed the complaint with 18 leave to amend for Plaintiff to attempt to correct numerous deficiencies and issues, 19 including the bar against damage claims for an unconstitutional conviction under Heck v. 20 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the seizure of property, inadequate medical care, and 21 timeliness. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 6. 22 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 2 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 3 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 5 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 6 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 7 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 9 Plaintiff names only two Defendants in the amended complaint: (1) an unknown 10 FBI Special Agent; and (2) Deputy District Attorney Kabu Adodojaji, of the District 11 Attorney’s Office for Contra Costa County. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. 12 Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on June 18, 2015, and placed in Contra Costa 13 County Martinez Detention Facility. Id. at 2. He was threatened by a number of deputies 14 to enter a plea deal for which he is currently serving time. Id. at 3. He claims he was 15 denied medical care for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Id. He was also subjected to 16 unreasonable moves, including to ad-seg where he was left “for long periods of time.” Id. 17 He also claims that numerous deputies, nurses and the DA used his identity and 18 fraudulently activated credit cards to purchase numerous properties and vehicles. Id. 19 Plaintiff states that he wrote several letters to the FBI Field Office from 2018 to 2023, 20 explaining the identity theft by County employees, but the FBI special agent refused to 21 investigate the fraud. Id. Plaintiff also claims that medical staff have made numerous 22 attempts on his life by refusing his treatment for his diabetes. Id. at 3-4. He claims the 23 FBI has refused to respond to his numerous letters and investigate the crimes he reported, 24 in violation of his right to equal protection. Id. at 4. He also claims that funds from his 25 inmate account have been stolen. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that there were issues with his 26 criminal case, including “hidden” evidence, in violation of due process. Id. He seeks 27 damages, to be released “from any provision or supervised release,” and that his federal 1 The amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies from the original complaint 2 nor does it address the several issues discussed in the Court’s initial review. First of all, 3 Plaintiff does not state whether the conviction or sentence he is challenging was already 4 invalidated such that a claim for damages is not barred under Heck. The fact that Plaintiff 5 seeks his arrest records to be expunged clearly indicates that this is not the case. Dkt. No. 6 4 at 3. 7 With regard to identity theft, Plaintiff was advised that Defendants had to be acting 8 under color of state law when they allegedly stole from him in order for him to state a 9 claim under § 1983. The private actions of a public official are not, simply by virtue of the 10 official’s governmental employ, accomplished under the color of state law. Johnson v. 11 Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient 12 facts to correct the deficiency of this claim. Dkt. No. 4 at 4-5. 13 Plaintiff’s claim regarding deficient medical care is also deficient. Although he has 14 explained his medical needs, he still fails to describe each Defendant’s subjective 15 awareness of the serious risk of harm to Plaintiff and their failure to abate that risk. 16 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In the amended complaint, Plaintiff names 17 only an unknown FBI agent and the DA, neither of whom are involved with his medical 18 care at the prison. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiency of this claim. 19 Dkt. No. 4 at 5-6. 20 Lastly, Plaintiff was advised that it appeared that almost all the claims may be time- 21 barred based on the dates of the alleged events. Dkt. No. 4 at 6-7. The Court gave Plaintiff 22 an opportunity to allege facts addressing a potential statute-of-limitations defense. See 23 Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 768 (9th Cir. 2015). He has failed to do so in the 24 amended complaint. 25 Because Plaintiff was already afforded an opportunity to amend, the Court finds no 26 good cause to grant him another opportunity where the deficiencies from the prior 27 complaint remain the same. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1 || has previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 2 || Cir. 1992). Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for 3 || relief. 4 6 For the foregoing reasons, the action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for 7 || relief. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 9 10 || DATED: March 29, 2024 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge g

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. San Francisco FBI, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Adams v. San Francisco FBI (Adams v. San Francisco FBI) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Dennis Sharkey v. Eral O'Neal
778 F.3d 767 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Johnson v. Knowles
113 F.3d 1114 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)