Harris v. Bullard

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 27, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-06648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZACKARY T. HARRIS, Case No. 19-cv-06648-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING REQUEST 9 v. FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 BRENDEN BULLARD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Lake County Jail, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, as 15 is his motion requesting injunctive relief with respect to Lake County Jail sergeant Brussard (Dkt. 16 No. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend and the 17 motion requesting injunctive relief is DENIED. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis in a separate order. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 27 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 2 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 3 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 4 Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 5 plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 6 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . 7 . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 9 proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 11 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 12 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 13 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Complaint 15 In the form complaint, Plaintiff has named the following individuals as defendants: State 16 of California Department of Fish & Game officer Brenden Bullard, public defender Anakalia 17 Sullivan, public defender Thomas Feimer, public defender Edward Savin, Lake County District 18 Attorney Susan Krones, Lake County District Attorney Abelson, Lake County Jail Sgt. Jimenez, 19 Lake County Jail Officer Hartman, Lake County Jail Captain Taylor, Lake County Superior Court 20 Judge Blum, Clearlake police officer Elvis Cook, Clearlake police officer Joe Kelleher, Clearlake 21 police officer O’Reilly, Clearlake police officer Audiss, Clearlake police officer Eagle, Clearlake 22 police officer Hobbs and Lake County Jail. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In his caption on his hand-drafted 23 complaint, plaintiff also names the following individuals as defendants: California Department of 24 Fish & Wildlife lieutenant Pascoe; California Department of Fish & Wildlife lieutenant Jones; 25 County of Lake; court clerk Carol Deuchar; dentist John Doe; and Lake County Jail officers 26 Hartman and Wallahan. 27 Plaintiff’s complaint is a lengthy and detailed narrative regarding events that happened 1 between August 3, 2018 and August 2019.1 According to the complaint, these constitutional 2 violations arise out of plaintiff’s arrest on August 3, 2018 for driving an unregistered vehicle, 3 possession of methamphetamine and marijuana for sale, and felony reckless evading; the 4 subsequent court proceedings; the subsequent incarceration; later arrests; and medical treatment, 5 or lack thereof, while incarcerated. See generally Dkt No. 1. Among other things, plaintiff claims 6 that he has been subjected to use of excessive force by defendant Bullard and by Clearlake police 7 officer Does; that he has been subjected to unreasonable and illegal search and seizure in violation 8 of the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment; that he has been subject to false arrest and illegal 9 incarceration in Lakeport County and Ukiah County jails; that he has been falsely imprisoned due 10 to a “farce and sham” conducted by Lake County Superior Court officers and district attorneys; 11 that he has been the subject of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; that he has 12 suffered battery and assault; that Judge Blum, Judge Lunas, District Attorney Abelson, and Public 13 Defender Anakalia Sullivan have conspired against him; and that Lake County Superior Court, et 14 al., have committed a miscarriage of justice. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff seeks $5 million in 15 compensatory damages, to be released from prison, and general and special damages. 16 As explained below, the complaint suffers from numerous deficiencies and is therefore 17 dismissed with leave to amend. 18 1. Challenges to State Court Proceedings and Conviction 19 Many of plaintiff’s claims challenge his state court criminal court proceedings. The 20 Supreme Court has held that lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review 21 state court decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a 22 petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See District of 23 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 24 Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). This legal principle is referred to as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 25 and this doctrine applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court. 26

27 1 Plaintiff states that this action originally arises out of events that took place on or around April 1 See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). The Rooker- 2 Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter 3 jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, 4 Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011). Here, 5 plaintiff challenges his state court conviction by challenging the state court proceedings on various 6 grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel and conspiracy between the judges, 7 prosecutors and public defenders, and requests immediate release from incarceration. Such a 8 challenge is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 9 Moreover, if a plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction, such a claim is not raised in a 10 Section 1983 action. Depending on the grounds on which he challenges his conviction, such a 11 claim may be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 28 12 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides that a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment may raise a 13 challenge to his conviction in federal court on the grounds that his conviction was contrary to, or 14 involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 15 Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 16 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254(d).2 The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff two copies of a blank 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 19 Any claims challenging the state court proceedings are DISMISSED without leave to 20 amend. Any claims challenging plaintiff’s conviction are DISMISSED without prejudice to 21 seeking relief in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 22 2. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 Plaintiff has alleged claims that are unrelated to the state court proceedings, such as 24 officers using excessive force during an December 9, 2018 arrest and during an April 30, 2019 25 arrest; Lake County Jail officials opening his legal mail and preventing him from making copies; 26

27 2 However, such a challenge may not be brought until the petitioner has exhausted his state court 1 and Lake County Jail officials failing to provide him with appropriate dental care in July 2019 and 2 failing to respond appropriately to his August 30, 2019 request for various accommodations, and 3 his requests for an optometrist appointment, treatment for a cancerous bump on his head, 4 medication for a serious rash and for chronic back pain. 5 Fed R. Civ. P. 20 provides that all persons “may be joined in one action as defendants if: 6 (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect 7 to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and 8 (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 10 Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 11 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different 12 defendants belong in different suits . . .” Id. “A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed 13 by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C 14 punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions – 15 should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.” Id. Although these incidents may be related or follow 16 chronologically, the incidents are separate series of occurrences and/or present different questions 17 of law. For example, an allegation that Defendant Bullard and other police officers falsely 18 arrested him and conducted an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is 19 a separate occurrence from denial of dental care in Lake County Jail a year later in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment, and raises different questions of law. 21 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the same 22 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (b) present questions of law 23 or fact common to all defendants named therein. Plaintiff needs to choose the claims he wants to 24 pursue in this action that also meet the joinder requirements. If Plaintiff has suffered 25 constitutional violations that may not be raised in the same action, he may bring separate actions 26 to seek relief. In addition, for the reasons set forth above, the amended complaint may not include 27 claims challenging the state court proceeding. 1 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint’s allegations be 2 short and plain; simple, concise, and direct; and describe the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 3 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 4 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s complaint does not directly link each defendant to an 5 alleged constitutional violation. The Court will not search through the factual allegations to 6 determine cognizable causes of action. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff should list the 7 constitutional right he has, describe what and when each defendant did or failed to do, and 8 describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. Plaintiff should also clearly 9 identify the defendants in one place in the complaint, rather than adding defendants in various 10 places throughout his complaint. A long pleading that goes into unnecessary detail about events 11 not directly related to the constitutional violations raised in this action or which does not directly 12 link each defendant to a constitutional violation will likely result in delay of the 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915A review or an order dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure for violation of the Court’s instructions. In addition, the amended complaint may 15 not include any claims challenging the state court proceeding. 16 C. Request for Temporary Restraining Order on Broussard 17 Plaintiff has requested a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief requiring Lake 18 County Jail Sergeant Broussard to provide a six-month trust account statement so that plaintiff 19 may complete his in forma pauperis application and be removed from his position of supervising 20 plaintiff’s pro per status because he is denying plaintiff legal copies and legal material. Dkt. No. 21 6. 22 The motion for a temporary restraining order requiring Lake County Jail Sergeant 23 Broussard to provide a six-month trust account statement is DENIED as moot. The financial 24 summary provided by plaintiff at Dkt. No. 9 at 3 will suffice to complete plaintiff’s in forma 25 pauperis application. 26 The motion for a temporary restraining order removing Lake County Jail Sergeant 27 Broussard from his position of supervising plaintiff’s pro per status is DENIED. 1 adverse party or that party’s attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by 2 affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will 3 result to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, 4 and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to 5 give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 65(b). Here, plaintiff has failed to show that immediate and irreparable injury will result to 7 him if Lake County Jail Sergeant Broussard continues to supervise pro per status. Thus far 8 plaintiff has been able to obtain the necessary materials to actively litigate his case. In two weeks, 9 plaintiff has filed four pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and he reports that he is currently litigating 10 another case in Lake County Superior Court, Dkt. No. 6 at 2. 11 Second, a plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction based on claims not pled in the 12 complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 13 2015). “[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive 14 relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act 15 of 1995 (“PLRA” restricts the power of the court to grant prospective relief in any action 16 involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a); Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th 17 Cir. 1998). There is currently no operative complaint and it is unclear which claims plaintiff will 18 choose to raise in this action in the amended complaint, i.e. deliberate indifference to medical 19 needs Eighth Amendment claim, false arrest claims, unlawful search and seizure claims, or lack of 20 access to the courts First Amendment claim. 21 Third, it is unclear if Sgt. Broussard will be a party to this action. As discussed above, 22 there is no operative complaint and it is unclear which claims plaintiff will raise in an amended 23 complaint and which individuals he will name as defendants. 24 For these reasons, plaintiff’s request that the Court issue a temporary restraining order or 25 other injunctive relief requiring that Sgt. Broussard be removed from his position of supervising 26 plaintiff’s pro per status is DENIED. 27 CONCLUSION 1 1. Plaintiffs request the Court issue a temporary restraining order or other injunctive 2 || relief requiring Lake County Jail Sergeant Broussard to provide a six-month trust account 3 statement is DENIED as moot. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff's request that the Court issue a temporary 4 || restraining order or other injunctive relief requiring that Sgt. Broussard be removed from his 5 || position of supervising plaintiffs pro per status is DENIED. Dkt. No. 6. 6 2. Any claims challenging the state court proceedings are DISMISSED without leave 7 |} toamend. Any claims challenging plaintiff's conviction are DISMISSED without prejudice to 8 seeking relief in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send 9 || plaintiff two copies of a blank petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 10 3. The remainder of the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 11 deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, plaintiff 12 shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 13 || number used in this order, Case No. C 19-06648 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 14 || COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, plaintiff must answer all the 3 15 questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended a 16 || complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as possible. The amended complaint must be 3 17 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading because an amended complaint 18 completely replaces the previous complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 19 Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 20 || Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided will result 21 in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. The Clerk shall include two copies of 22 || the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to plaintiff. 23 This order terminates Dkt. No. 6. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 11/27/2019 26 Atapurel 5 Mb HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge 28