Felix v. Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL JOSEPH FELIX, Case No. 24-cv-00193 BLF (PR) 11 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

14 SANTA CLARA CTY OFFICE OF THE

15 DISTRICT ATTORNEY., et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. Dkt. No. 1. 20 The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to correct various 21 deficiencies in the pleading. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 22 14. For the reasons discussed below, the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff 11 made vague and confusing allegations without sufficient factual allegations to establish the 12 violation of any constitutional right. Dkt. No. 13 at 3-4. The Court also stated that there 13 were several potential problems which required further information from Plaintiff for the 14 Court to determine the following: (1) whether there were ongoing criminal proceedings 15 such that Younger abstention applied, (2) whether Plaintiff was already convicted and was 16 challenging his conviction and sentence such that a habeas action was the appropriate 17 avenue; (3) whether Heck bar applied, and (4) whether prosecutorial immunity applied to 18 bar any claim against the DA. Id. at 3-5. Plaintiff was advised that he must address teach 19 of these issues in an amended complaint. Id. 20 Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to correct the issues discussed in the Court’s 21 order. Dkt. No. 14. Rather, he names additional Defendants, including several judges and 22 county employees. Id. at 2. Furthermore, the allegations in the amended complaint raise 23 the same concerns as the original as Plaintiff refers to a state criminal action and that his 24 arrest was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 2-3. There are no clarifying allegations 25 indicate either that there are ongoing criminal proceedings or that Plaintiff has been 26 convicted and sentenced. As such, it fails to correct the various deficiencies identified by 1 Plaintiff was already afforded one opportunity to amend, and the Court finds no 2 || good cause to grant him another opportunity where the amended complaint fails to correct 3 || the deficiencies from the original. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 4 || 2003) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly broad where plaintiff 5 || has previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 6 || Cir. 1992). Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice 10 || for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. «= 12 || Dated: _ October 1,2024_ LoaInfhacien BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge 15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order of Dismissal 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\00193Felix_ dism(ftsac) 26 27