Owens v. California Highway Patrol, et al.

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Without Prejudice re 1 Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 5/9/2013. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERRY LEE OWENS,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:13-cv-00251-LJO-SAB

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
et al.,

15
Defendants.

(ECF No. 1)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS

16
17
I.
18
INTRODUCTION
19
20

Plaintiff Jerry Lee Owens, a pretrial detainee appearing pro se and informa pauperis in this

21

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on February 19, 2013. For the

22

reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the favorable

23

termination rule and the Younger abstention doctrine; and the action should be dismissed without

24

prejudice.

25

II.

26

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

27

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

28

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
1

1

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that

3

“seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915(e)(2)(B).

5

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

6

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

7

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

8

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

9

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate

10

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v.

11

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

12

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings

13

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d

14

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be

15

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer

16

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss

17

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant

18

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

19

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d

20

at 969.

21

III.

22

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

23

Plaintiff brings this action against the California Highway Patrol, Officer Joel Nevarez,

24

District Attorney Michael Moberly, Public Defenders Amber Miramontes and Matthew Barker,

25

Office of the Public Defender for Tulare County, Office of the District Attorney for Tulare

26

County, Tulare County Jail, Judges Stephen A. Sillman and James W. Hollman, City of Visalia,

27

and Clerk Larayne Cleek. Plaintiff's complaint consists mainly of twenty-seven pages of legal

28

argument and case citations. Plaintiff alleges that a probable cause affidavit was fabricated and
2

1

the arraignment, preliminary hearing, and felony complaint filed in this action committed a fraud

2

upon the court. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1.)

3

Plaintiff states that on March 25, 2012, Officer Joel Nevarez detained Plaintiff and had

4

him taken by ambulance to have his blood drawn at the hospital. (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff claims he

5

was subsequently "kidnapped and falsely imprisoned" in the Tulare County jail for approximately

6

forty-eight hours without probable cause, and released with no charges being filed. (Id. at 18.)

7

On July 13, 2012, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint against Plaintiff

8

and an arrest warrant issued. (Id. at 18.) On or about October 16, 2012, Plaintiff was arrested by

9

the Fresno Police Department, and transported to Tulare County on October 17, 2012. (Id. at 18-

10

19.) Plaintiff was held for forty-three days and was required to post bail. (Id. at 19.)

11

Plaintiff demands to inspect the original felony complaint, probable cause affidavit,

12

transcripts from court hearings, and certified copies of the Oath of Office of all third party

13

defendants and officers of the court. Plaintiff alleges violations of due process and is seeking

14

several billion dollars in damages.

15

III.

16

DISCUSSION

17

A.

Favorable Termination Rule

18

In this instance, Plaintiff is seeking damages based upon alleged constitutional violations

19

in an ongoing criminal prosecution. It has long been established that state prisoners cannot

20

challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a § 1983 action, and their sole remedy lies

21

in habeas corpus relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the

22

favorable termination rule, this exception to § 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever

23

state prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement - either directly through an

24

injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that

25

necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.”

26

(emphasis added). Thus, “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) -

27

no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit

28

(state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action
3

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81

1

would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-2.

2

Plaintiff is raising issues in his complaint that would necessarily call into question the

3

validity of his current incarceration and criminal conviction. Because Plaintiff has not shown that

4

his criminal conviction or sentence has been invalidated, Plaintiff's sole remedy is in habeas

5

corpus.

6

B.

Abstention

7

If this Court were to address Plaintiff's claims that his constitutional rights are being

8

violated, it would interfere with the state prosecution of Plaintiff's ongoing criminal case. Under

9

principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state

10

criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under special

11

circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required

12

when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve

13

important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the

14

constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423,

15

432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). The

16

rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate

17

review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted.

18

Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention decision,

19

state court proceedings are still considered pending).

20

The Supreme Court has held that federal courts can abstain in cases that present a federal

21

constitutional issue, but which can be mooted or altered by a state court determination. Colorado

22

River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813-14 (1976); County of

23

Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89 (1959); see also Quackenbush v. Allstate

24

Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716-17 (1996). In determining whether it should abstain, a federal court

25

should consider problems which can occur when two courts assume jurisdiction over the same

26

claim - the inconvenience of the federal forum, the avoidance of piecemeal litigation, and the

27

order in which the parties filed the state and federal proceedings. Colorado River, 424 at 818-19.

28

“Only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by
4

1

way of injunction of habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed

2

from, and the case concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.

3

1972). The special circumstances that may warrant pretrial federal habeas intervention include

4

harassment, bad faith prosecutions and other circumstances where irreparable harm can be

5

proven. Carden v. State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S.

6

1014.

7

In the instant action, Plaintiff is challenging the ongoing state criminal proceedings

8

against him in Tulare County Superior Court. Plaintiff is essentially asking this court to step into

9

the middle of state court criminal proceedings. The court declines to do so and will abstain under

10

Younger. Plaintiff is challenging the ruling at his preliminary hearing and the sufficiency of the

11

State’s evidence.

12

proceedings involve the important state interest of protecting the public. Moreover, the state

13

court proceedings afford Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the

14

evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that abstention is proper with respect to the ongoing

15

criminal action pending against Plaintiff in state court.

The ongoing state criminal proceedings are judicial in nature, and the

16

IV.

17

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

18

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the favorable termination rule and

19

abstention doctrine. "Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend

20

‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” In addition, “[l]eave to amend should be granted

21

if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

22

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). However, in this action, the Court finds

23

that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore,

24

further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809

25

F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

26
27

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this
action be dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice.

28
5

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

2

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one

3

(21) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these

4

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

5

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The

6

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28

7

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

8

time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

9

(9th Cir. 1991).

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:
15

May 9, 2013

_

DEAC_Signature-END:

16

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6