Pao v. Superior Court County of Fresno, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/10/2015. CASE CLOSED. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to the "three-strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CHERTA LEE PAO,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF
FRESNO, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01731-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(ECF No. 8)
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) Plaintiff has
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) No other parties have appeared
in the action.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given
leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) His first amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is before the
Court for screening.
I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

2

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which

3

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

4

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

5

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

6

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may

7

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

8

II.

PLEADING STANDARD

9

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,

10

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

11

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

12

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for

13

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94

14

(1989).

15

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

16

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and

17

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

18

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d

19

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

20

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

21

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations

22

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

23

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

24

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

25

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

26

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere

27

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are

28
2

1

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

2

III.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

3

The caption of Plaintiff’s complaint lists as Defendants: (1) Superior Court of the

4

State of California, County of Fresno; (2) Fresno City Police; and (3) Fresno County

5

Sherriff’s Office (Jail). The body of his complaint lists only Sherriff Margaret Mims as

6

Defendant.

7

Plaintiff’s initial complaint alleged that he was arrested by fake police officers and

8

held at the Fresno County Jail on false charges. (ECF No. 1.) His amended complaint

9

contains substantially less detailed allegations. He alleges that all of his constitutional

10

rights are being violated, his is unlawfully incarcerated, he is the subject of a profiling

11

conspiracy, and he is being held hostage by false officers. He seeks to be freed from his

12

“hostage situation.”

13

IV.

14
15

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff previously was advised of the following legal standards governing his

claims. (ECF No. 7.)

16

A.

Younger Abstention

17

To the extent Plaintiff seeks intervention in ongoing state criminal proceedings,

18

this Court must abstain. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should

19

not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory

20

relief except under special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);

21

Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the

22

applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781

23

F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) ( “When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the

24

Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983

25

action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a

26

substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); Gilbertson v.

27

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention applies to actions for

28
3

1

damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). Younger abstention is required

2

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

3

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

4

raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,

5

457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th

6

Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the Court must abstain from interfering with Plaintiff’s ongoing state

7
8

proceeding.

9

B.

Heck Bar

10

State prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a

11

section 1983 action. Their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson,

12

544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule or the Heck

13

bar, this exception to § 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state prisoners

14

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

15

compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily

16

implies the unlawfulness of the State's custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81. “[A] state

17

prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) if success in that action

18

would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-82;

19

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994) (until and unless favorable termination of

20

the conviction or sentence occurs, no cause of action under § 1983 exists).

21
22

Plaintiff may not bring his request for release in a section 1983 action.
V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

23

Plaintiff's claims are barred under Younger and Heck. The Court will not interfere

24

in any ongoing state court proceedings, and the challenge to the validity of Plaintiff’s

25

confinement may only be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, Plaintiff

26

has failed to state any claims that are cognizable under section 1983. Plaintiff previously

27
28
4

1

was advised of this deficiency but failed to cure it. Further leave to amend would be futile

2

and will be denied.

3

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim,

5

2. Dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to the “three strikes” provision

6

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and

7

3.

8

CLOSE this case.

The Clerk of court shall terminate any and all pending motions and

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 10, 2015

/s/

12

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5