Grant Charles Rhodes et al v. Susan Pochter Stone et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AT SCREENING STAGE by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Plaintiff has until April 29, 2016, to file his brief. Failure to timely abide by this Order will result in the dismissal of this action. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-1989-PSG (PJW)

Title

Grant Charles Rhodes v. Susan Pochter Stone, et. al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 11, 2016

Patrick J. Walsh, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Martinez

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

Order To Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed at Screening Stage

Before the Court is a civil rights complaint by Plaintiff, a prisoner at La Palma Correctional
Center in Elroy, Arizona, against ten Ventura County employees and the Ventura County Superior
Court, alleging that they played some role in impeding his efforts to overturn a criminal conviction for
which he is now serving time in prison. After screening the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
not and likely cannot state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against these Defendants but will allow
him opportunity to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice at this stage.
The Court is required to screen pro se prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that, among other
things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a)-(b)(1). In doing so, the Court considers the complaint and any exhibits attached to it. See,
e.g., Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622-23 (9th Cir. 1997) . In determining whether Plaintiff has
stated a claim, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint and views all
inferences in a light most favorable to him. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally.
Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States was violated and the violation was committed by an individual acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
In 2004, Plaintiff was convicted in Ventura County Superior Court of, among other things,
assaulting a police officer with a firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and resisting arrest.
He was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Plaintiff appealed his conviction and it was affirmed. He then
filed state and federal habeas corpus petitions, which were denied. He now brings this § 1983 claim,
raising claims against various Ventura County employees and the Ventura County Superior Court for
allegedly violating his rights during the appeals process. The essence of his suit is that Defendants have
prevented him from establishing his innocence by withholding from him exculpatory evidence in their
files. Such an action is specifically barred under the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and its progeny. In Heck, the Supreme Court established that a prisoner
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-1989-PSG (PJW)

Date

Title

April 11, 2016

Grant Charles Rhodes v. Susan Pochter Stone, et. al.

cannot bring a civil rights action which would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction
unless the conviction has been called into question. Plaintiff seeks to do exactly that. He points out in
the Complaint, for example, that the evidence he seeks from Defendants “could potentially undermine
the conviction.” (Complaint at 15.) He seeks help from the Court to gain access to exculpatory
evidence so that he can prove in the state court that his counsel was ineffective. (Complaint at 1.) In
paragraph after paragraph he explains how the evidence he has obtained so far or hopes to obtain
contradicts the evidence at trial and how it demonstrates the injustice of his conviction. For example, he
complains that the government destroyed evidence that would have established his innocence. This
claim in particular and Plaintiff’s other claims in general are barred by Heck. 512 U.S. at 479, 490
(holding claim that government “ ‘knowingly destroyed’ evidence ‘which was exculpatory in nature and
could have proved [petitioner’s] innocence’ ” cannot be maintained under § 1983); cf. Skinner v.
Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011). Thus, all of Plaintiff’s claims regarding the evidence and the alleged
problems with it cannot go forward.
Plaintiff is suing his appellate counsel, claiming that she was ineffective, failed to investigate,
and prevented his access to exculpatory evidence. Heck bars this claim, too. Adanandus v. King Cty.
Pub. Def. Office, 47 F. App’x 832 (9th Cir. 2002); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th
Cir. 1995) (explaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims are barred under Heck).
Plaintiff sues police captain Robert Davidson for failing to turn over documents under the
Freedom of Information Act ((“FOIA”). FOIA does not apply to state and local police. It only applies
to federal agencies. Thames v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 2008 WL 2641361, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 30,
2008) (citing Moore v. United Kingdom, 384 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff sues Dispatch Officers Lisa Pfeiffer, John Vogel, and Ann Chung, claiming that they
have expertise he needs to obtain access to the courts. There is obviously no constitutional requirement
that these individuals provide expert testimony for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff claims investigators were negligent in conducting the investigation. Negligence does
not rise to the level of a civil rights violation. Williams v. City of Albany, 936 F.2d 1256, 1261 (11th
Cir. 1991); see also Lewis v. Sacramento County, 98 F.3d 434, 440 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that even
“bare gross negligence” is not enough for a § 1983 violation).
Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Ventura County Superior Court to provide him
with counsel to obtain evidence and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on new evidence he obtained
through a FOIA request. The Court is not empowered or inclined to instruct the Superior Court to
appoint counsel in that case, nor do Plaintiff’s requests establish a civil rights violation.
Though it appears to the Court that nothing Plaintiff can say or do can rectify the shortcomings
in the Complaint, recognizing that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him an
opportunity to
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-1989-PSG (PJW)

Date

Title

April 11, 2016

Grant Charles Rhodes v. Susan Pochter Stone, et. al.

explain why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice at this stage. Plaintiff has until April
29, 2016, to file his brief. Failure to timely abide by this Order will result in the dismissal of this action.

cc: all parties

S:\PJW\Cases-Civil Rights\RHODES 16-1989\MO Screening Order - OSC.wpd

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

im

Page 3 of 3