1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:22-CV-0634-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 19. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with 2 at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, 3 vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for 4 the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and 5 conclusory. 6 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 In the three-page first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following 9 defendants: (1) County of Sacramento; (2) Ann Schubert, former Sacramento County District 10 Attorney; (3) Sonia Satchell, Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney; and (4) Gerald F. 11 Keena.1 See ECF No. 19, pg. 1. 12 Plaintiff appears to raise several claims regarding Defendant Schubert’s 13 involvement in his initial prosecution in 2020. Plaintiff alleges that, while in jail in 2019, 14 plainclothes detectives employed by Defendant Schubert broke his feet and beat him in order to 15 attain a false conviction. See id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, on January 30, 2020, plainclothes 16 detectives employed by Defendant Schubert shut down the jail and took documents and evidence 17 Plaintiff planned to present at his trial. See id. at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that he was charged by 18 Defendant Schubert with “non-crime, rare, false, and fabricated charges based on false and 19 fabricated testimonies only.” See id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schubert 20 deceived the court in his case to set his bail higher than was allowed, causing $90,000,000.00 in 21 unspecified losses. See id. at 3. 22 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Schubert took unspecified property from 23 Plaintiff without cause and without notifying Plaintiff. See id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that Defendant 24 Satchell selected Defendant Keena as the receiver of the property and that Defendant Keena was 25 ordered to remove occupants from the property. See id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, because
26 1 Named in the amended complaint but not the original complaint are Sonia Satchell and Gerald Keena. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to update the docket to add these 27 individuals as defendants. Named in the original complaint but no longer named in the superseding amended complaint are Brad Rose, Scott Jones, and Lesley Kolb. The Clerk of the 28 Court will be directed to terminate these individuals as defendants. 1 Defendant Keena failed to remove the occupants, the property was burned down, and the 2 occupants were killed. See id. at 2. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schubert spread false 3 information about Plaintiff, claiming that Defendant had killed unspecified occupants, which may 4 refer to the occupants of the unspecified property that was burned down. See id. at 3. 5 These current allegations are starkly different than those set forth in Plaintiff’s 6 original complaint, which related to conditions of confinement at the Sacramento County Jail 7 during the COVID-19 pandemic. See ECF No. 1. 8 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff appears to have completely changed the theory of the case in the first 11 amended complaint. As indicated above, in the original complaint Plaintiff alleged various 12 Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violations related to his incarceration at the 13 Sacrament County Jail. See ECF No. 1, see also ECF No. 13 (screening order addressing original 14 complaint). In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff now appears to assert various constitutional 15 violations which led to a “false conviction.” See ECF No. 19. More specifically, Plaintiff claims 16 that the charges against him are false, fabricated, and based on deception. See id. Plaintiff also 17 appears to claim that Defendants interfered with his ability to present a defense by confiscating 18 unspecified documents from his cell. Plaintiff alleges this was all done in order to “terrorize 19 minorities.” See id. 20 When Plaintiff initiated this action, he was confined at Kern Valley State Prison. 21 See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. The docket reflects that Plaintiff has since been transferred to High Desert 22 State Prison. Plaintiff’s incarceration in a California state prison suggests that he has in fact been 23 convicted. Whether this conviction arose from the charges referenced in the first amended 24 complaint is unclear. However, to the extent Plaintiff’s claims relate to his current conviction, the 25 claims are not cognizable. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks 2 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not 3 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ 4 of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 5 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 6 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief 7 alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s 8 underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in 9 imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not 10 cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by 11 habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:22-CV-0634-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 19. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with 2 at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, 3 vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for 4 the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and 5 conclusory. 6 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 In the three-page first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following 9 defendants: (1) County of Sacramento; (2) Ann Schubert, former Sacramento County District 10 Attorney; (3) Sonia Satchell, Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney; and (4) Gerald F. 11 Keena.1 See ECF No. 19, pg. 1. 12 Plaintiff appears to raise several claims regarding Defendant Schubert’s 13 involvement in his initial prosecution in 2020. Plaintiff alleges that, while in jail in 2019, 14 plainclothes detectives employed by Defendant Schubert broke his feet and beat him in order to 15 attain a false conviction. See id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, on January 30, 2020, plainclothes 16 detectives employed by Defendant Schubert shut down the jail and took documents and evidence 17 Plaintiff planned to present at his trial. See id. at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that he was charged by 18 Defendant Schubert with “non-crime, rare, false, and fabricated charges based on false and 19 fabricated testimonies only.” See id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schubert 20 deceived the court in his case to set his bail higher than was allowed, causing $90,000,000.00 in 21 unspecified losses. See id. at 3. 22 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Schubert took unspecified property from 23 Plaintiff without cause and without notifying Plaintiff. See id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that Defendant 24 Satchell selected Defendant Keena as the receiver of the property and that Defendant Keena was 25 ordered to remove occupants from the property. See id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, because
26 1 Named in the amended complaint but not the original complaint are Sonia Satchell and Gerald Keena. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to update the docket to add these 27 individuals as defendants. Named in the original complaint but no longer named in the superseding amended complaint are Brad Rose, Scott Jones, and Lesley Kolb. The Clerk of the 28 Court will be directed to terminate these individuals as defendants. 1 Defendant Keena failed to remove the occupants, the property was burned down, and the 2 occupants were killed. See id. at 2. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schubert spread false 3 information about Plaintiff, claiming that Defendant had killed unspecified occupants, which may 4 refer to the occupants of the unspecified property that was burned down. See id. at 3. 5 These current allegations are starkly different than those set forth in Plaintiff’s 6 original complaint, which related to conditions of confinement at the Sacramento County Jail 7 during the COVID-19 pandemic. See ECF No. 1. 8 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff appears to have completely changed the theory of the case in the first 11 amended complaint. As indicated above, in the original complaint Plaintiff alleged various 12 Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violations related to his incarceration at the 13 Sacrament County Jail. See ECF No. 1, see also ECF No. 13 (screening order addressing original 14 complaint). In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff now appears to assert various constitutional 15 violations which led to a “false conviction.” See ECF No. 19. More specifically, Plaintiff claims 16 that the charges against him are false, fabricated, and based on deception. See id. Plaintiff also 17 appears to claim that Defendants interfered with his ability to present a defense by confiscating 18 unspecified documents from his cell. Plaintiff alleges this was all done in order to “terrorize 19 minorities.” See id. 20 When Plaintiff initiated this action, he was confined at Kern Valley State Prison. 21 See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. The docket reflects that Plaintiff has since been transferred to High Desert 22 State Prison. Plaintiff’s incarceration in a California state prison suggests that he has in fact been 23 convicted. Whether this conviction arose from the charges referenced in the first amended 24 complaint is unclear. However, to the extent Plaintiff’s claims relate to his current conviction, the 25 claims are not cognizable. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks 2 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not 3 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ 4 of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 5 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 6 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief 7 alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s 8 underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in 9 imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not 10 cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by 11 habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483- 12 84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to 13 malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding 14 was concluded in plaintiff’s favor). 15 If the criminal proceedings referenced in the amended complaint resulted in 16 Plaintiff’s current conviction, this action would be barred under Heck because success on the 17 merits of Plaintiff’s claims of false evidence, deception, etc., would necessarily imply the 18 invalidity of that conviction. It is unclear, however, whether the criminal proceedings referenced 19 in the amended complaint are the same proceedings which resulted in Plaintiff’s current 20 incarceration in state prison. The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to clarify 21 the underlying facts. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 3 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire 4 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is 5 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 6 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 7 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 8 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 9 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 10 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 11 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 12 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 13 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 14 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 15 each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between 16 each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 17 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 18 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 19 time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 20 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 21 with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 22 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to add Sonia 3 || Satchell and Gerald Keena as defendants to this action. 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Brad Rose, Scott Jones, and 5 || Lesley Kolb as defendants to this action because they are no longer named in the operative 6 || superseding first amended complaint. 7 3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint, ECF No. 19, is dismissed with leave to 8 | amend. 9 4. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date 10 || of service of this order. 1] 12 | Dated: May 17, 2024 Ss..c0_, 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28