Byron Martin v. Garden Grove Police Dept of Orange County of California

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar.Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than January 27, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See Order for complete details) (Attachments: # 1 Courts September 29, 2016 Order, # 2 Civil Rights Complaint (Blank), # 3 Notice of Dismissal (Blank)) (afe)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

BYRON MARTIN,

) No. CV 16-01219-JFW (AS)
)
) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
GARDEN GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

On

20

July
at

1,

2016,

Salinas

Plaintiff

Valley

State

Byron

Martin

(“Plaintiff”),

a

21

prisoner

Prison, in Soledad, California,

22

filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

1).

24

Defendant, alleging one claim for unlawful arrest and incarceration.

25

(Compl. 1).

(Docket Entry No.

The Complaint names Garden Grove Police Department as the sole

Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in monetary relief.

26
27
28
1

(Id.).

1

The Court has screened the Complaint as prescribed by 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

3

Court DISMISSES the COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.1

For reasons discussed below, the

4
5

II.

6

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

7
8
9

Plaintiff alleges that he was “unlawfully arrested” on June 15,
2013,

by

the

Garden

Grove

Police

Department

and

subsequently

10

incarcerated for approximately three weeks.

(Compl. 1).

Plaintiff

11

attributes missing his father’s funeral, which occurred the day after

12

his arrest, to his “unlawful incarceration.”

(Id.).

13
14

III.

15

STANDARD OF REVIEW

16
17

Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil

18

complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental

19

entity or employee.

20

complaint, or any portion thereof, before service of process, if the

21

court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious;

22

(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or

23

(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

24

relief.

25

203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

28

U.S.C.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

§

1915A(b)(1)–(2);

A court may dismiss such a

see

also

Lopez

v.

Smith,

26
1

27
28

Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to
amend without approval from the district judge. McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
2

1
2

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if a

3

complaint fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief

4

that

is

5

550

U.S.

6

(2009).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

7

factual

content

8

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr.

plausible
544,

on

570

its

face.”
Ashcroft

(2007);

that

Bell
v.

allows

the

Atl.

Corp.

Iqbal,

court

to

556

draw

v.

U.S.

the

Twombly,
662,

678

reasonable

10

& Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013).

A plaintiff must

11

provide more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation

12

of the elements” of his claim.

13

556 U.S. at 678.

14

[complaint] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the

15

. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”

16

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Twombly, 550

17

U.S. at 555).

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal,

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the

Erickson v.

18

In

19

considering

whether

to

dismiss

a

complaint,

a

court

is

20

generally limited to the pleadings and must construe all “factual

21

allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as true and . . . in the

22

light

23

250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001).

24

“to be liberally construed” and held to a less stringent standard

25

than those drafted by a lawyer.

26

Hebbe

27

incorporated the Twombly pleading standard and Twombly did not alter

28

courts’ treatment of pro se filings; accordingly, we continue to

most

v.

favorable”

Pliler,

627

to

the

F.3d

plaintiff.

Lee

v.

City

of

L.A.,

Moreover, pro se pleadings are

Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; see also

338,

3

342

(9th

Cir.

2010)

(“Iqbal

1

construe

2

Iqbal.”).

3

be warranted based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or

4

the

5

Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir.

6

2008).

7

claim

8

necessarily defeat the claim.

9

1228–29 (9th Cir. 1984).

pro

se

filings

liberally

when

evaluating

them

under

Nevertheless, dismissal for failure to state a claim can

absence

of

factual

support

for

a

cognizable

legal

theory.

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a
if

it

discloses

some

fact

or

complete

defense

that

will

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

10
11

IV.

12

DISCUSSION

13
14

The

Complaint

15

although

16

1915A(b)(1).

leave

to

contains
amend

deficiencies

will

be

warranting

granted.

See

dismissal,

28

U.S.C.

§

17
18
19

A.

The

Complaint

Fails

to

State

a

Cognizable

Legal

Theory

and

Associated Facts Upon which Relief Can be Granted

20
21

As currently pled, these allegations do not provide sufficient

22

detail to plead a § 1983 claim in accordance with Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 8.

24

that states a claim for relief must contain: . . . a short and plain

25

statement

of

26

relief.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

27

than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief; without some

28

factual allegation in the complaint it is hard to see how a claimant

the

Rule 8 provides in relevant part: “A pleading

claim

showing

that

the

pleader

is

entitled

to

Rule 8 requires a showing, rather

4

1

could satisfy the requirement of providing not only fair notice of

2

the nature of the claim, but also grounds on which the claim rests.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2);

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 at 555.

4

Here,

5

Plaintiff

alleges

that

he

was

unlawfully

arrested

and

6

incarcerated, but Plaintiff does not give any additional facts or a

7

cognizable legal theory to establish that the arrest was unlawful.

8

Consequently, the Court is unable to determine whether the arrest

9

lacked justification to surmise that Plaintiff was falsely arrested.

10

See

Lacey

v.

Maricopa

Cty.,

693

F.3d

896,

918

(9th

Cir.

2012)

11

(quoting Dubner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964

12

(9th Cir. 2001)) (“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under

13

§ 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest

14

was without probable cause or other justification.”).

15

Plaintiff to satisfy Rule 8, he must state a cognizable legal theory

16

for an unlawful arrest and then state applicable facts, demonstrating

17

that there are plausible grounds for relief.

18

(2009).

In order for

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

19
20

B.

This Suit May Be in Conflict with Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

21
22

Where a plaintiff alleges pursuant to § 1983 that there was no

23

probable

cause

for

his

arrest,

it

24

underlying conviction is invalid, but a plaintiff cannot obtain §

25

1983 relief until the underlying conviction is overturned on appeal,

26

by a habeas petition, or through a similar proceeding.

27

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994); Cabrera v. City of Huntington

28

Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding that
5

necessarily

implies

that

the

See Heck v.

1

§

2

cognizable because a finding that there was no probable cause to

3

arrest plaintiff for disturbing the peace would necessarily imply

4

that plaintiff’s conviction for disturbing the peace was invalid).

5

Accordingly, a plaintiff must first invalidate the related conviction

6

regardless of the form of remedy sought, may that be monetary damages

7

or injunctive relief, before a § 1983 suit may be brought.

8

Edwards

9

plaintiff pleads what is essentially a Habeas Corpus claim under §

1983

claims

v.

for

false

Balisok,

520

arrest

U.S.

and

641,

false

imprisonment

646-48

(1997).

were

Thus,

not

See
if

a

10

1983, the Court should dismiss the claim without prejudice.

See

11

Balisok, 520 U.S. at 649; Heck v. Humprhey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

12

Here,

13

Plaintiff

alleges

that

he

was

unlawfully

arrested

and

14

incarcerated, but he does not state the legal theory upon which his

15

unlawful

16

Plaintiff

17

during his arrest or officers did not have probable cause to arrest

18

Plaintiff in the first place.

19

violations under the Fourth Amendment.

20

146, 152 (2004) (“[A] warrantless arrest by a law officer [sic] is

21

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause

22

to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”);

23

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (claim that law enforcement

24

officials have used excessive force in course of arrest of a person

25

is

26

reasonableness

27

arrested without probable cause, Plaintiff is advised that he must

28

first

arrest

is

filed

properly

based.

suit

because

analyzed
standard).

invalidate

his

(Compl.

officers

related

It

acted

is

with

unclear

whether

excessive

force

Both legal theories are Constitutional

under
If

1).

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S.

Fourth

Plaintiff

conviction
6

Amendment's
is

alleging

through

a

objective

that

habeas

he

was

corpus

1

petition or allege facts in good faith, stating he was not convicted

2

of a crime related to the subject arrest.

3

U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (Heck is only triggered once a person has been

4

convicted). If Plaintiff is successful in invalidating his conviction

5

or was not convicted of a crime related to this claim, he may then

6

seek monetary damages through a § 1983 civil rights action.

See Wallace v. Kato, 549

7
8

V.

9

ORDER

10
11

For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

the

Court

DISMISSES

the

12

Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue

13

this action, he shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than 30

14

days from the date of this Order.

15

cure the pleading defects discussed above and shall be complete in

16

itself without reference to the original Complaint.

17

(“Every amended pleading filed as a matter of right or allowed by

18

order of the Court shall be complete including exhibits.

19

pleading shall not refer to the prior, superseding pleading.”).

20

means that Plaintiff must allege and plead any viable claims in the

21

original Complaint again.

The First Amended Complaint must

See L.R. 15-2

The amended
This

22
23

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature

24

of each separate legal claim and confine his allegations to those

25

operative facts supporting each of his claims.

26

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and

27

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

28

relief.”

Pursuant to Federal

However, Plaintiff is advised that the allegations in the
7

1

First Amended Complaint should be consistent with the authorities

2

discussed above.

3

include

4

allegations

5

strongly encouraged to once again utilize the standard civil rights

6

complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is

7

attached.

new

In addition, the First Amended Complaint may not

Defendants
in

the

or

claims

previously

not

filed

reasonably

related

complaints.

to

Plaintiff

the
is

8
9

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a

10

First

Amended

Complaint,

11

described above, may result in a recommendation that this action, or

12

portions

13

prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders.

14

Civ. P. 41(b).

15

wishes to pursue this action in its entirety or with respect to

16

particular Defendants or claims, he may voluntarily dismiss all or

17

any part of this action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance

18

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

19

Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.

thereof,

be

or

failure

dismissed

with

to

correct

prejudice

the

for

deficiencies

failure

See Fed. R.

Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer

A form Notice of

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: September 16, 2016

24
25
26

to

___/s/_________________________
ALKA SAGAR
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
8