1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO ROSALES, No. 2:26-cv-0990 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHASTA COUNTY D.A.’S OFFICE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff did not request leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 19 or pay the court’s filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 I. COURT’S FILING FEE 22 Plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee of 23 $350.00 plus the $55.00 administrative fee.1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). In order to 24 proceed with this case, plaintiff must request leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or pay the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity either to 26
27 1 If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not 28 required to pay the $55.00 administrative fee. 1 submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit 2 the required fees totaling $405.00. 3 II. SCREENING STANDARDS 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 17 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 18 1227. 19 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff sues the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, claiming he has served 17 21 years, and seeks a reduction of his prison sentence under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 22 (ECF No. 1 at 14.) 23 IV. DISCUSSION 24 Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which 25 challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. 26 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor’s actions are immunized 27 requires a functional analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation 28 underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). The prosecutor’s quasi-judicial functions, rather than 2 administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of 3 malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment 4 of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Stevens v. 5 Rifkin, 608 F. Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984). The Shasta County District Attorney’s office is 6 immune from suit to the extent that petitioner challenges their role in prosecuting plaintiff. 7 In addition, plaintiff cannot obtain a reduction in his prison sentence through a civil rights 8 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a general rule, a claim that challenges the fact or duration of a 9 prisoner’s confinement should be addressed by filing a habeas corpus petition, while a claim that 10 challenges the conditions of confinement should be addressed by filing a civil rights action. 11 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). Any federal action seeking to 12 challenge the duration of plaintiff’s prison confinement must be brought through a petition for 13 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But before plaintiff may bring such a habeas 14 petition, he must first exhaust state court remedies as to such claim.2 Review of state court 15 records reflects that plaintiff has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 16 Supreme Court.3 Plaintiff’s last filing in the California Supreme Court was his petition for 17 review of his underlying criminal conviction in People v. Rosales, No. S255114, which was 18 denied on June 12, 2019. Plaintiff may also seek a reduction in his prison sentence in the Shasta 19 County trial court. 20
21 2 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 22 explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the 23 highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 24 the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 25 3 The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 26 reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO ROSALES, No. 2:26-cv-0990 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHASTA COUNTY D.A.’S OFFICE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff did not request leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 19 or pay the court’s filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 I. COURT’S FILING FEE 22 Plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee of 23 $350.00 plus the $55.00 administrative fee.1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). In order to 24 proceed with this case, plaintiff must request leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or pay the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity either to 26
27 1 If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not 28 required to pay the $55.00 administrative fee. 1 submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit 2 the required fees totaling $405.00. 3 II. SCREENING STANDARDS 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 17 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 18 1227. 19 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff sues the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, claiming he has served 17 21 years, and seeks a reduction of his prison sentence under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 22 (ECF No. 1 at 14.) 23 IV. DISCUSSION 24 Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which 25 challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. 26 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor’s actions are immunized 27 requires a functional analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation 28 underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). The prosecutor’s quasi-judicial functions, rather than 2 administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of 3 malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment 4 of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Stevens v. 5 Rifkin, 608 F. Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984). The Shasta County District Attorney’s office is 6 immune from suit to the extent that petitioner challenges their role in prosecuting plaintiff. 7 In addition, plaintiff cannot obtain a reduction in his prison sentence through a civil rights 8 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a general rule, a claim that challenges the fact or duration of a 9 prisoner’s confinement should be addressed by filing a habeas corpus petition, while a claim that 10 challenges the conditions of confinement should be addressed by filing a civil rights action. 11 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). Any federal action seeking to 12 challenge the duration of plaintiff’s prison confinement must be brought through a petition for 13 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But before plaintiff may bring such a habeas 14 petition, he must first exhaust state court remedies as to such claim.2 Review of state court 15 records reflects that plaintiff has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 16 Supreme Court.3 Plaintiff’s last filing in the California Supreme Court was his petition for 17 review of his underlying criminal conviction in People v. Rosales, No. S255114, which was 18 denied on June 12, 2019. Plaintiff may also seek a reduction in his prison sentence in the Shasta 19 County trial court. 20
21 2 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 22 explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the 23 highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 24 the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 25 3 The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 26 reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on official websites. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 27 2010). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the docket sheet of a California court. White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website of the California 28 state courts is www.courts.ca.gov. ] It would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend because he cannot remedy the defects 2 || identified above. Therefore, plaintiff is granted the option of voluntarily dismissing this action so 3 || that he may first pursue his state court remedies. Because plaintiff has not yet paid the filing fee 4 || or submitted his request to proceed in forma pauperis, opting to voluntarily dismiss the case will 5 || spare plaintiff the assessment of the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to 6 || proceed with this action, he will incur the filing fee, as explained above, and this Court will 7 || recommend that this action be dismissed. 8 | V. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 In light of this order, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied. 10 | VI. CONCLUSION 1] In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an affidavit in 13 support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk 14 of Court, or the required fees in the amount of $405.00; plaintiffs failure to comply 15 with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; OR 16 plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this case. 17 2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied. 18 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In 19 Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner. 20 21 | Dated: April 13, 2026 A a CA Spo | CHI SOO KIM 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 /1/rosa0990.3.vol 25 26 27 28