Valles v. Green et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted Under Section 1983 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/6/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANK VALLES, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. Case No. 1:13-cv-00713-SKO PC ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983 LISA GREEN, et al., (Doc. 1) 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Frank Valles, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 15, 2013. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at Kern 19 County Lerdo Pretrial Facility in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiff is charged with murder and he 20 alleges that in April, Deputy District Attorney Ken Green and his investigator, Stevenson, came to 21 the jail with a tape recorder and recorded an interview with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that 22 Defendant Green was very angry, pointing his finger at Plaintiff and shouting at him. Plaintiff 23 alleges that Defendant Green admitted to many issues with the case, stated that he knew there was 24 no premeditation, and threatened Plaintiff with additional charges. Plaintiff seeks redress for the 25 “illegally” recorded conversation and the threats. (Comp., § IV.) 26 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 28 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 1 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that 2 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 3 (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 4 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6 Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to any claims for relief under section 1983, because 7 the events described do not rise to the level of a constitutional or other federal violation. Nurre v. 8 Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 9 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Specifically, 10 Defendant Green is entitled to prosecutorial immunity concerning decisions about the initiation of 11 criminal charges, and Plaintiff’s claim that his rights were violated over a threat to bring additional 12 charges fails as a matter of law. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2013) 13 (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 421-24, 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976)). Further, the tape 14 recording of the interview between Plaintiff and Defendants Green and Stevenson, which occurred 15 openly, did not violate Plaintiff’s rights. See Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143-44, 82 S.Ct. 16 1218 (1962) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail visiting room); U.S. v. Van Poyck, 77 17 F.3d 285, 290-91 (9th Cir. 1996) (no expectation of privacy in outgoing jail calls). 18 Given the bases for Plaintiff’s claims, the deficiencies are not capable of being cured 19 through amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, this 20 action is ORDERED DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted under section 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal of this action qualifies as a 22 strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011). 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?