1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAJON DANIEL, No. 2:24-cv-1358 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. BRADLEY NELSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 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 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 20 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 21 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 22 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 23 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 24 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 25 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 26 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 27 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 28 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 1 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 2 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 3 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 4 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 5 Discussion 6 Named as defendants are E. Bradley Nelson and Malary Getty. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 7 Plaintiff identifies defendants as Judicial Officers of the Solano County Superior Court. (Id.) It 8 is clear that defendants are Superior Court Judges. 9 In claim one, plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2024, defendant Nelson violated plaintiff’s 10 constitutional rights by revoking plaintiff’s Faretta waiver and telling plaintiff that plaintiff was 11 incompetent. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Nelson added charges that were not there 12 previously which made plaintiff “no bail.” (Id.) 13 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that on April 12, 2024, defendant Getty threatened to revoke 14 plaintiff’s Faretta waiver because plaintiff asked defendant Getty if she was an Article 3 judge. 15 (Id. at 3.) Defendant Getty allegedly told plaintiff that she was going to revoke plaintiff’s Faretta 16 waiver because plaintiff was mentally incompetent. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty 17 wrongly moved his preliminary hearing from April 16, 2024 to May 10, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff 18 alleges that his witness could not testify at the preliminary hearing because it was moved. (Id.) 19 In claim three, plaintiff alleges that defendants Getty and Nelson racially discriminated 20 against plaintiff. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty unconstitutionally terminated 21 plaintiff’s preliminary hearing and threatened plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when plaintiff 22 spoke about the Constitution, defendant Nelson prosecuted plaintiff and added unlawful charges. 23 (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nelson unlawfully assigned a criminal protective order that 24 was not filed with the Clerk of the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after defendant Nelson 25 revoked plaintiff’s Faretta waiver, defendant Nelson tried to appoint a public defender. (Id.) 26 As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 6.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 2 damages.” Mireles v.
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 DAJON DANIEL, No. 2:24-cv-1358 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. BRADLEY NELSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 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 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 20 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 21 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 22 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 23 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 24 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 25 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 26 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 27 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 28 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 1 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 2 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 3 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 4 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 5 Discussion 6 Named as defendants are E. Bradley Nelson and Malary Getty. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 7 Plaintiff identifies defendants as Judicial Officers of the Solano County Superior Court. (Id.) It 8 is clear that defendants are Superior Court Judges. 9 In claim one, plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2024, defendant Nelson violated plaintiff’s 10 constitutional rights by revoking plaintiff’s Faretta waiver and telling plaintiff that plaintiff was 11 incompetent. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Nelson added charges that were not there 12 previously which made plaintiff “no bail.” (Id.) 13 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that on April 12, 2024, defendant Getty threatened to revoke 14 plaintiff’s Faretta waiver because plaintiff asked defendant Getty if she was an Article 3 judge. 15 (Id. at 3.) Defendant Getty allegedly told plaintiff that she was going to revoke plaintiff’s Faretta 16 waiver because plaintiff was mentally incompetent. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty 17 wrongly moved his preliminary hearing from April 16, 2024 to May 10, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff 18 alleges that his witness could not testify at the preliminary hearing because it was moved. (Id.) 19 In claim three, plaintiff alleges that defendants Getty and Nelson racially discriminated 20 against plaintiff. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Getty unconstitutionally terminated 21 plaintiff’s preliminary hearing and threatened plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when plaintiff 22 spoke about the Constitution, defendant Nelson prosecuted plaintiff and added unlawful charges. 23 (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nelson unlawfully assigned a criminal protective order that 24 was not filed with the Clerk of the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after defendant Nelson 25 revoked plaintiff’s Faretta waiver, defendant Nelson tried to appoint a public defender. (Id.) 26 As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 6.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is well established that a state judge generally is “immune from suit for money 2 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991). This immunity is overcome in only two sets 3 of circumstances. Id. at 11. “First, a judge is not immune from liability from nonjudicial actions, 4 i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, 5 though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 11-12 (citations 6 omitted). “[W]hether an act by a judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate[s] to the nature of the act itself, 7 i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, 8 i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 9 349, 362 (1978). A “complete absence of all jurisdiction” means a clear lack of subject matter 10 jurisdiction. Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 Plaintiff challenges rulings made by defendants Getty and Nelson in plaintiff’s criminal 12 case. All of the challenged rulings by defendants Getty and Nelson were clearly made in their 13 judicial capacities and within the scope of their jurisdiction as Superior Court Judges. 14 Accordingly, defendants Getty and Nelson are entitled to judicial immunity as to these claims. 15 Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Nelson added charges to plaintiff’s case. Filing 16 criminal charges is not a function normally performed by a Superior Court Judge. Cf. Ohman v. 17 County of Orange, 460 Fed.Appx. 649, 650 (9th Cir. 2011) (the filing of criminal charges by 18 prosecutors is conduct related to their role as advocate for the state). This Court cannot determine 19 whether plaintiff states a potentially colorable claim against defendant Nelson because plaintiff 20 does not explain how defendant Nelson added charges to plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, this claim 21 is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff shall discuss 22 the specific actions taken by defendant Nelson that resulted in charges added to plaintiff’s case. 23 Plaintiff is informed that if plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a potentially 24 colorable claim against defendant Nelson, this action will most likely be stayed until the 25 completion of plaintiff’s criminal proceedings. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007) 26 (actions raising claims challenging ongoing state proceedings should be stayed). 27 /// 28 /// ] If plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a 2 || prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires 3 || that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This 4 || requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original 5 || complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an 6 || ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” 7 || (anternal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 8 | longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 9 || complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 12 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 13 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 14 | § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 15 || Solano County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 16 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 17 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 18 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 19 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 20 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 21 || Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 22 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 23 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 24 || Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 25 || this action. 26 || Dated: May 20, 2024 7 2 Aan Spe | Danl 358.14 CHI 500 KIM 28 | 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 DAJON DANIEL, No. 2:24-cv-1358 CSK P 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 10 E. BRADLEY NELSON, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 14 filed______________. 15 16 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: 17
18 ________________________________ Plaintiff 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28