Errol Joseph Scorza v. State of California
Filing
13
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. Re Complaint 1 . A First Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days after the date of this Order. (Attachments: # 1 CV Rights Complaint Form CV-66, # 2 Dismissal Form CV-9) (ib)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERROL JOSEPH SCORZA,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. CV 17-04044 PA (AFM)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
On May 31, 2017, plaintiff, an inmate presently held at the California
18
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California, filed a Complaint in this
19
pro se action. The Complaint, which is 180 pages long, appears to pertain to a Los
20
Angeles County Superior Court case that plaintiff seeks to have “vacated.” (ECF
21
No. 1 at 13). Plaintiff names one defendant: “State of California D/B/A Stacy
22
Gravely,” with an address in Los Angeles. (Id. at 1, 14.) Plaintiff claims that Stacy
23
Gravely, “representing the . . . Superior Court of the State of California knowingly
24
and willingly . . . committing [sic] a malfeasance of justice, through negligence
25
and/or inadvertence . . .” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff seeks to have the case “vacated for
26
want/lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and for plaintiff to be discharged from
27
custody. (Id.)
28
In accordance with the terms of the “Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995”
1
(“PLRA”), the Court has screened the Complaint prior to ordering service for
2
purposes of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious; or fails to
3
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a
4
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C.
5
§ 1997e(c)(1). The Court’s screening of the pleading under the foregoing statutes is
6
governed by the following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of
7
law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal
8
theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v.
9
Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Rosati v.
10
Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (when determining whether a
11
complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under the PLRA, the
12
court applies the same standard as applied in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
13
12(b)(6)). In determining whether the pleading states a claim on which relief may
14
be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the
15
light most favorable to plaintiff. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
16
(9th Cir. 1989). However, the “tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
17
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft
18
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nor is the Court “bound to accept as true a
19
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056,
20
2065 n.5 (2014) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Rather, a court first “discounts
21
conclusory statements, which are not entitled to the presumption of truth, before
22
determining whether a claim is plausible.” Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d
23
1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). Then, “dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff
24
failed to allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
25
Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
26
omitted, emphasis added).
27
Further, since plaintiff is a prisoner appearing pro se, the Court must construe
28
the allegations of the pleading liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any
2
1
doubt. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Alvarez v.
2
Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008) (because a prisoner was proceeding
3
pro se, “the district court was required to ‘afford [him] the benefit of any doubt’ in
4
ascertaining what claims he ‘raised in his complaint’”) (alteration in original).
5
However, the Supreme Court has held that “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
6
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions,
7
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
8
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
9
level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
10
doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
11
(internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
12
(To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient
13
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
14
face.’ . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
15
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
16
the misconduct alleged.” (internal citation omitted)).
17
In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) states:
18
19
20
21
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1)
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3)
a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or different types of relief.
22
23
(Emphasis added).
Further, Rule 8(d)(1) provides: “Each allegation must be
24
simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.” Although the Court
25
must construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, a plaintiff nonetheless must
26
allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give
27
each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon
28
which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193,
3
1
199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (a
2
complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claims against them).
3
plaintiff fails to clearly and concisely set forth factual allegations sufficient to
4
provide defendants with notice of which defendant is being sued on which theory
5
and what relief is being sought against them, the pleading fails to comply with Rule
6
8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v.
7
Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981).
8
“substantive plausibility” if a plaintiff alleges “simply, concisely, and directly [the]
9
events” that entitle him to damages. Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346, 347
If a
A claim has
10
(2014).
Failure to comply with Rule 8 constitutes an independent basis for
11
dismissal of a pleading that applies even if the claims are not found to be wholly
12
without merit. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179; Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.
13
Following careful review of the Complaint, the Court finds that it fails to
14
comply with Rule 8 because it fails to state a short and plain statement of any claim
15
that is sufficient to give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims may be or
16
the grounds upon which they rest. In addition, its allegations appear insufficient to
17
state any claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Complaint is
18
dismissed with leave to amend. See Rosati, 791 F.3d at 1039 (“A district court
19
should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely
20
clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”)
21
(internal quotation marks omitted).
22
If plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First
23
Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order,
24
remedying the deficiencies discussed below. Further, plaintiff is admonished
25
that, if he fails to timely file a First Amended Complaint, or fails to remedy the
26
deficiencies of this pleading as discussed herein, the Court will recommend that this
27
28
4
1
action be dismissed without leave to amend.1
2
3
A.
State of California as a defendant
4
The Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over suits by individuals
5
against a State and its instrumentalities, unless either the State consents to waive its
6
sovereign immunity or Congress abrogates it. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
7
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1984). To overcome this Eleventh Amendment
8
bar, the State’s consent or Congress’ intent must be “unequivocally expressed.”
9
Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99. While California has consented to be sued in its own
10
courts pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act, such consent does not constitute
11
consent to suit in federal court. See BV Engineering v. Univ. of Calif., 858 F.2d
12
1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988). Finally, Congress has not repealed state sovereign
13
immunity against suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Here, the Complaint names only the State of California as a defendant, but
14
15
plaintiff may not proceed against the State of California in federal court.
16
B.
Rule 8
17
Plaintiff’s Complaint violates Rule 8 in that the Complaint does not set forth
18
a short and plain statement of any claim. The “Complaint” primarily appears to be
19
comprised of exhibits, but one section is entitled “State of Issues.” That section,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff is advised that this Court’s determination herein that the allegations in
the Complaint are insufficient to state a particular claim should not be seen as
dispositive of that claim. Accordingly, although this Court believes that you have
failed to plead sufficient factual matter in your pleading, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face, you are not required to omit any claim or
defendant in order to pursue this action. However, if you decide to pursue a claim
in a First Amended Complaint that this Court has found to be insufficient, then this
Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately may submit to the
assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to your right at that time to file
Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local Rules Governing Duties
of Magistrate Judges.
5
1
however, does not allege a factual or legal basis for any claim against either the
2
State of California or, to the extent that plaintiff may be intending to name Stacy
3
Gravely as a defendant, against Stacy Gravely. Further, in one of the exhibits
4
attached to the Complaint, plaintiff identifies “Stacie [sic] K. Gravely” as a
5
“prosecuting attorney” with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
6
(ECF No. 1 at 16.) To the extent that Stacy Gravely was the prosecuting attorney in
7
a criminal case against plaintiff, prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from
8
damages liability when they engage in activities “intimately associated with the
9
judicial phase of the criminal process,” such as the prosecution and presentation of
10
the state’s case. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430 (1976); see also
11
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). This immunity
12
applies even if it “does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress
13
against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty.”
14
See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427. However, it is the nature of the function performed,
15
not the role or identity of the actor that determines the scope of absolute immunity.
16
See Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013) (“the Supreme
17
Court has emphasized this functional approach for determining when public
18
officials may claim absolute immunity under § 1983”).
19
prosecutorial in nature are entitled to absolute immunity “when they are intimately
20
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Slater v. Clarke, 700
21
F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Van de
22
Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342 (2009)). Here, because plaintiff’s Complaint
23
fails to set forth any factual allegations against Stacy Gravely, it is unclear if
24
plaintiff is purporting to raise any claims against this potential defendant arising
25
from prosecutorial functions.
Functions that are
26
On the Civil Cover Sheet that he filed with the Complaint, plaintiff indicated
27
that the nature of his suit was “other fraud.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 81.) To the extent
28
that plaintiff is purporting to raise any claim of fraud, the Complaint does not meet
6
1
the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) in that it does not plead
2
with particularity what specific misconduct by a named defendant is alleged to have
3
constituted fraud. See, e.g., Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.
4
2001).
5
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the
6
minimal requirement of Rule 8 that a pleading allow each defendant to discern what
7
he or she is being sued for. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177; see also Twombly, 550
8
U.S. at 555 (“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
9
speculative level”). The Court remains mindful that, because plaintiff is appearing
10
pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the Complaint liberally and must
11
afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. That said, the Supreme Court has made
12
clear that the Court has “no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se
13
litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). In addition, the Supreme
14
Court has held that, while a plaintiff need not plead the legal basis for a claim, the
15
plaintiff must allege “simply, concisely, and directly events” that are sufficient to
16
inform the defendants of the “factual basis” of each claim. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at
17
347. Here, plaintiff’s Complaint simply fails to set forth a simple, concise, and
18
direct statement of the factual or legal basis of any claim against any defendant.
19
C.
Plaintiff appears to be asserting a habeas claim
20
Plaintiff’s Complaint states that the “relief sought” is to have a Superior
21
Court case “vacated” and for plaintiff to be “discharged from the custody” of the
22
State of California. (ECF No. 1 at 13.)
23
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have a criminal conviction set aside,
24
a petition for habeas corpus is a prisoner’s sole judicial remedy in federal court
25
when attacking “the validity of the fact or length of … confinement.” Preiser v.
26
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 875 (9th
27
Cir. 1990). Thus, plaintiff may not use another civil action in federal court to
28
challenge the validity of a conviction or incarceration. Such relief only is available
7
1
in a habeas corpus action. A civil rights complaint that appears to be seeking
2
habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for
3
writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th
4
Cir. 1995).
************
5
6
If plaintiff still desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First
7
Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order,
8
remedying the pleading deficiencies discussed above.
9
Complaint should bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled “First
10
Amended Complaint”; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the
11
original Complaint, or any other pleading, attachment, or document.
The First Amended
12
The clerk is directed to send plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights
13
complaint form, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize. Plaintiff is admonished
14
that he must sign and date the civil rights complaint form, and he must use the
15
space provided in the form to set forth all of the claims that he wishes to assert in a
16
First Amended Complaint.In addition, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this
17
action, he may request a voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule
18
of Civil Procedure 41(a). The clerk also is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal
19
form for plaintiff’s convenience.
20
Plaintiff is further admonished that, if he fails to timely file a First Amended
21
Complaint, or fails to remedy the deficiencies of this pleading as discussed herein,
22
the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed for failure to diligently
23
prosecute.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8/8/2017
____________________________________
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?