1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WANDA MAE HARRISON, No. 2:22-cv-1080 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 18 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 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 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 Plaintiff names the San Joaquin County District Attorney as the sole defendant. Plaintiff 6 alleges that because the district attorney failed to drop the charges against plaintiff, plaintiff lost 7 money, time, reputation, and freedom. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks money damages. 8 Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which 9 challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. 10 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor's actions are immunized 11 requires a functional analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation 12 underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 13 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). The prosecutor's quasi-judicial functions, rather than 14 administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of 15 malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment 16 of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity.1 See Stevens v. 17 Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 18 Plaintiff appends multiple pages to her complaint, including a list of definitions, questions 19 of law and constitutional law quotes, but the relevance of such documents is unclear. (ECF No. 1 20 at 4-29.) It appears that plaintiff objected to her prior commitment to Napa State Hospital. 21 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 22 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 23 court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by 24 1 It is unclear whether plaintiff was convicted. But if plaintiff seeks to challenge a conviction, 25 plaintiff must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
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 WANDA MAE HARRISON, No. 2:22-cv-1080 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 18 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 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 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 Plaintiff names the San Joaquin County District Attorney as the sole defendant. Plaintiff 6 alleges that because the district attorney failed to drop the charges against plaintiff, plaintiff lost 7 money, time, reputation, and freedom. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks money damages. 8 Prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under § 1983 which 9 challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. 10 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a prosecutor's actions are immunized 11 requires a functional analysis. The classification of the challenged acts, not the motivation 12 underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 13 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). The prosecutor's quasi-judicial functions, rather than 14 administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune. Thus, even charges of 15 malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment 16 of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity.1 See Stevens v. 17 Rifkin, 608 F.Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 18 Plaintiff appends multiple pages to her complaint, including a list of definitions, questions 19 of law and constitutional law quotes, but the relevance of such documents is unclear. (ECF No. 1 20 at 4-29.) It appears that plaintiff objected to her prior commitment to Napa State Hospital. 21 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 22 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 23 court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by 24 1 It is unclear whether plaintiff was convicted. But if plaintiff seeks to challenge a conviction, 25 plaintiff must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As a general rule, a claim that challenges the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement should be addressed by 26 filing a habeas corpus petition, while a claim that challenges the conditions of confinement should 27 be addressed by filing a civil rights action. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 28 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004). 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint 2 must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. 3 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some 4 degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. 5 Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint 6 must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 7 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 8 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 9 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 10 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 11 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 12 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 13 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 14 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 15 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 16 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 17 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 18 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 19 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 20 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 21 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 22 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 23 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 24 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 27 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 28 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the San 2 || Joaquin County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 3 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 4 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 5 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 6 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 7 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 8 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 9 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 10 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 11 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 12 || dismissal of this action. 13 || Dated: July 20, 2022 i Aectl Aharon 15 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ari080.14n 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WANDA MAE HARRISON, No. 2:22-cv-1080 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICT 14 ATTORNEY, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint 19 DATED:
20 ________________________________ 21 Plaintiff
22 23 24 25 26 27 28