Shehee v. Carter

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACK CARTER,

12

Defendant.

13

1:14-cv-00624-LJO-BAM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

14
Findings and Recommendations

15
16

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 28, 2014, is

18

currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19

I.

Screening Requirement

20

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the

21

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails

22

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173

27

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must

28

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

1

1

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true,

2

legal conclusions are not. Id.

3

II.

4

Plaintiff alleges that Jack Carter, Chief of Police Services for the Department of State

Allegations in Complaint

5

Hospitals, deprived Plaintiff of his right to a fair trial by denying Plaintiff crime discovery and

6

receipt of evidence in pending state court criminal matters. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a

7

motion to compel the production of documents by Coalinga State Hospital, including police

8

reports, and discovery regarding patients at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff’s complaint also

9

appears to seek the return of documents from a Deputy District Attorney produced by Plaintiff in

10

a criminal matter. Plaintiff alleges that he being denied the right to a fair trial in state court

11

related to the denial of criminal discovery.

12
13

III.

Discussion
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

14

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and

15

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

16

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause

17

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

18

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

19

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

20

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

22

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is not a short and plain statement of his claims showing that

23

he is entitled to relief. It is disjointed, repetitive, and conclusory. Nonetheless, it is evident that

24

Plaintiff is complaining about discovery in one or more state court criminal matters.

25

2. Abstention

26

Absent extraordinary circumstances, this court is barred from directly interfering with

27

any ongoing criminal proceedings against Plaintiff in state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401

28

U.S. 37, 46 & 48-50, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1980)

2

1

(exceptions to the general rule of federal abstention arise only in “cases of proven harassment or

2

prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid

3

conviction,” or “in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”);

4

Oliver v. Pineschi, 2014 WL 1431709, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) (Younger abstention

5

intended to apply where plaintiff seeks to have district court intervene in an ongoing criminal

6

prosecution); Mansanares v. Arizona, 2011 WL 5924349, *6 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2011) (in most

7

circumstances Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal court from directly interfering

8

without ongoing criminal proceedings in state court). Further, the district court lacks jurisdiction

9

over any request for discovery in Plaintiff’s state court criminal matter. Easley v. Jones, 2009

10

WL 2152084, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2009).

11
12

IV.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state

13

a claim upon which relief can be granted. The deficiencies at issue are not curable through

14

amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

15

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

16

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

18

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

19

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file

20

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

21

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

22

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s

23

factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839, (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

24

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2015

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

3