1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAWRENCE C. WOOD, Case No. 22-cv-07284-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 ECF Nos. 6, 13, 14, 15 10 JEFFREY HAYDEN, et al., Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiff has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the Court for 14 review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1. This order also addresses 15 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 6; Plaintiff’s motion for copies of everything, ECF No. 16 13, and Plaintiff’s motion to add an additional statement of claim, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has been 17 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 26 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 3 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 4 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 5 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 6 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 8 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 9 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 10 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 B. Complaint 12 The complaint names as defendants attorneys Jeffery Hayden and Esther Aguyo, both part 13 of San Mateo County’s private defenders program; San Mateo County Superior Court Court 14 Executive Neal Taniguchi; San Mateo Deputy Superior Court deputy court clerk II Peter Ring, and 15 San Mateo County Superior Court judge Hill. 16 Plaintiff’s handwriting is challenging to decipher. The Court has been able to discern the 17 following allegations from the complaint. Plaintiff is represented in San Mateo Superior Court 18 Case No. 21-SF-007567 A1 by defendants Hayden and Aguyo. Starting on July 5, 2022 through 19 October 24, 2022, Plaintiff made multiple requests to defendants Hayden and Aguyo for the 20 relevant discovery in his case, but he has not received any discovery. Defendant Hayden failed to 21 file a Romero motion on behalf of Plaintiff even though he filed such a motion for another client 22 being prosecuted at the same time as Plaintiff. This failure denied Plaintiff due process. 23 Defendant Hill “went against [the] plea agreement.” Plaintiff would have had a better outcome on 24 his case had he been provided the requested discovery. 25 1 Plaintiff is currently housed at North Kern State Prison. It is unclear from the complaint whether 26 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or incarcerated pursuant to a conviction. However, as discussed further below, the case records in Case No. 21-SF-007567 A, People v. Wood (”Wood I”) indicate 27 that Plaintiff was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance while in prison (Cal. 1 The complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for the following reasons. 2 First, Plaintiff has failed to state a federal law or federal constitutional claim. There is no 3 federal due process right to having one’s own attorney provide requested discovery or a federal 4 due process right to having a Romero motion filed. Plaintiff does not identify any other right 5 under federal law or the federal Constitution that was violated. 6 Second, Plaintiff has failed to link defendants Ring and Taniguchi to any violation of 7 federal law or the federal Constitution. He does not reference these defendants in the body of his 8 complaint. Plaintiff has attached a letter wherein defendant Ring advises Plaintiff that he can 9 obtain discovery in his case from the District Attorney’s Office and that if he has further 10 questions, he could contact his attorney, Esther Aguyo. Defendant Taniguchi is listed on the 11 letterhead of this letter. The Court will not attempt to discern a federal claim from this letter, and 12 it is unlikely that this letter establishes liability for a civil rights violation. 13 Third, according to court records, Wood I is still pending. The last event in this case was a 14 preliminary hearing on July 19, 2022. There have been no other court proceedings since then. 15 This case is not yet adjudicated.2 It is therefore unclear how defendant Hill went against the plea 16 agreement or how Plaintiff would have received a better outcome on his case if granted discovery, 17 given that neither a plea bargain nor a sentence has been entered in this case. 18 While it is possible that these above deficiencies could be remedied, this case must be 19 dismissed with prejudice for the following reason. 20 Because Wood I is ongoing, any claims arising out of Wood I are barred by the Younger 21 abstention doctrine. The Younger abstention principle provides that, under principles of comity 22 and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 23 granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. 24 Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, 25 judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) 26 the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex 27 1 County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). A fourth requirement 2 has also been articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court action would enjoin the state 3 proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding 4 in a way that Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th 5 Cir. 2008) (citing cases). Here, state proceedings are ongoing. Wood I is currently pending in San 6 Mateo County Superior Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAWRENCE C. WOOD, Case No. 22-cv-07284-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 ECF Nos. 6, 13, 14, 15 10 JEFFREY HAYDEN, et al., Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiff has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the Court for 14 review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1. This order also addresses 15 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 6; Plaintiff’s motion for copies of everything, ECF No. 16 13, and Plaintiff’s motion to add an additional statement of claim, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has been 17 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 26 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 3 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 4 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 5 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 6 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 8 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 9 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 10 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 B. Complaint 12 The complaint names as defendants attorneys Jeffery Hayden and Esther Aguyo, both part 13 of San Mateo County’s private defenders program; San Mateo County Superior Court Court 14 Executive Neal Taniguchi; San Mateo Deputy Superior Court deputy court clerk II Peter Ring, and 15 San Mateo County Superior Court judge Hill. 16 Plaintiff’s handwriting is challenging to decipher. The Court has been able to discern the 17 following allegations from the complaint. Plaintiff is represented in San Mateo Superior Court 18 Case No. 21-SF-007567 A1 by defendants Hayden and Aguyo. Starting on July 5, 2022 through 19 October 24, 2022, Plaintiff made multiple requests to defendants Hayden and Aguyo for the 20 relevant discovery in his case, but he has not received any discovery. Defendant Hayden failed to 21 file a Romero motion on behalf of Plaintiff even though he filed such a motion for another client 22 being prosecuted at the same time as Plaintiff. This failure denied Plaintiff due process. 23 Defendant Hill “went against [the] plea agreement.” Plaintiff would have had a better outcome on 24 his case had he been provided the requested discovery. 25 1 Plaintiff is currently housed at North Kern State Prison. It is unclear from the complaint whether 26 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or incarcerated pursuant to a conviction. However, as discussed further below, the case records in Case No. 21-SF-007567 A, People v. Wood (”Wood I”) indicate 27 that Plaintiff was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance while in prison (Cal. 1 The complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for the following reasons. 2 First, Plaintiff has failed to state a federal law or federal constitutional claim. There is no 3 federal due process right to having one’s own attorney provide requested discovery or a federal 4 due process right to having a Romero motion filed. Plaintiff does not identify any other right 5 under federal law or the federal Constitution that was violated. 6 Second, Plaintiff has failed to link defendants Ring and Taniguchi to any violation of 7 federal law or the federal Constitution. He does not reference these defendants in the body of his 8 complaint. Plaintiff has attached a letter wherein defendant Ring advises Plaintiff that he can 9 obtain discovery in his case from the District Attorney’s Office and that if he has further 10 questions, he could contact his attorney, Esther Aguyo. Defendant Taniguchi is listed on the 11 letterhead of this letter. The Court will not attempt to discern a federal claim from this letter, and 12 it is unlikely that this letter establishes liability for a civil rights violation. 13 Third, according to court records, Wood I is still pending. The last event in this case was a 14 preliminary hearing on July 19, 2022. There have been no other court proceedings since then. 15 This case is not yet adjudicated.2 It is therefore unclear how defendant Hill went against the plea 16 agreement or how Plaintiff would have received a better outcome on his case if granted discovery, 17 given that neither a plea bargain nor a sentence has been entered in this case. 18 While it is possible that these above deficiencies could be remedied, this case must be 19 dismissed with prejudice for the following reason. 20 Because Wood I is ongoing, any claims arising out of Wood I are barred by the Younger 21 abstention doctrine. The Younger abstention principle provides that, under principles of comity 22 and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 23 granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. 24 Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, 25 judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) 26 the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex 27 1 County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). A fourth requirement 2 has also been articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court action would enjoin the state 3 proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding 4 in a way that Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th 5 Cir. 2008) (citing cases). Here, state proceedings are ongoing. Wood I is currently pending in San 6 Mateo County Superior Court. Second, state criminal proceedings implicate important state 7 interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“states’ interest in administering their 8 criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the 9 considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief”) (holding that 10 federal bankruptcy court should not invalidate results of state criminal proceedings). Third, it is 11 unclear if Plaintiff has raised any constitutional issues but to the extent that Plaintiff believes that 12 counsel has been ineffective or that there are other constitutional issues related to Wood I, the state 13 proceedings afford Plaintiff adequate opportunity to raise this issue, through direct appeal or state 14 collateral proceedings. Finally, the practical effect of granting relief in this action would require 15 this Court to actively monitor and interfere with an ongoing state court proceeding. The Younger 16 abstention principle compels the Court to abstain from considering any issues arising out of, or 17 related to, Wood I. 18 For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and with 19 prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention principle. 20 C. Pending Motions 21 Plaintiff has filed four additional motions: a request for discovery, ECF No. 6; a request for 22 copies of everything filed in this action, ECF No. 13; a request to add an additional claim, ECF 23 No. 14; and two additional requests for discovery, ECF Nos. 15, 17. 24 In light of the Court’s dismissal of action pursuant to the Younger abstention principle, 25 Plaintiff’s requests for discovery are DENIED as moot. ECF Nos. 6, 15. 26 Plaintiff’s request for copies of everything filed in this action is GRANTED IN PART 27 AND DENIED IN PART. ECF No. 13. Generally speaking, the Court does not provide copies of 1 provide Plaintiff one-time courtesy copies of ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 14 under separate cover. 2 Plaintiffs request to add an additional statement of claim is DENIED as moot in light of 3 || the Court’s dismissal of this action pursuant to Younger. ECF No. 14.7 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to state a claim and 6 || with prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention principle; DENIES as moot Plaintiffs request 7 || for discovery, ECF No. 6, and Plaintiff's request to add an additional statement of claim, ECF No. 8 14; and DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's request for copies of everything, 9 || ECFNo. 13. 10 The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close the 11 case. a 12 This order terminates ECF Nos. 6, 13, 14, 15, and 17.
IT IS SO ORDERED. ® v 14 || Dated: May 16, 2023
45 = JON S. TIGAR Q 16 nited States District Judge
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 3 Tf a plaintiff wishes to add a claim to his complaint, the appropriate procedure is to file an amended complaint that lists all the claims in one document. Plaintiffs may not amend their 28 complaint piecemeal by filing claims in separate filings. In addition, the Court notes that review of Plaintiffs proposed additional claim is also barred by Younger.