Thuemler v. Stanislaus County, et al.
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the instant action be DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief re 1 Complaint, filed by Justin Michael Thuemler; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/11/2016. Objections to F&R due by 4/18/2016(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUSTIN MICHAEL THUEMLER,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00332-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 1]
17
Plaintiff Justin Michael Thuemler is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983, filed on February 29, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Central District
19
of California. The action was transferred to this Court on March 7, 2016.
20
I.
21
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
24
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
25
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks
26
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
27
28
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
1
1
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
2
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
3
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally
4
participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County,
5
Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
6
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings
7
liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now
8
higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive
9
screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
10
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal,
11
556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer
12
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely
13
consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
14
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
15
II.
16
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff names Stanislaus County, Judge Silveria, public defender Snypes, and district attorney
17
18
Holtman as Defendants in this action.
19
Plaintiff contends Stanislaus County has put his life in danger by not allowing him to leave.
20
Plaintiff was advised that he would be killed if he did not turn over evidence against certain outlaw
21
motorcycle clubs. When Plaintiff refused they roused up this case and filed criminal charges against
22
him.
23
Plaintiff‟s public defender Snypes took Plaintiff in a room where Judge Silveria and deputy
24
attorney H. Holtman and two officers were waiting. The two officers slammed part of Plaintiff‟s
25
upper body on the table and told him if he didn‟t help them he could just as easily disappear. Ms.
26
Holtman and Judge Silveria said if Plaintiff did not help them they would “put this case on me and
27
ruin my life forever!” They also told Plaintiff it would be known that he was a confidential informant
28
on the outlaw bikers.
2
As relief, Plaintiff seeks to not be allowed to register so he can hide from the outlaw bikers
1
2
who want to kill him because he is a confidential informant. Plaintiff also seeks $675.000.00 ($300.00
3
for each day) he was incarcerated and away from his son.
4
III.
5
DISCUSSION
6
A.
Challenge to Criminal Conviction
7
A challenge to conditions of confinement is properly raised in a civil rights action, a challenge
8
to the fact and/or the duration of confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
9
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez,
10
411 U.S. 475, 485(1973)); accord Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2005)
11
(per curiam). To the extent Plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction and/or sentence, his sole
12
remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 500. Indeed,
13
on February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court in Justin Michael
14
Thuemler v. Stanislaus County, 1:16-cv-00175-MJS (HC), which is presently pending. In that
15
petition, Plaintiff challenges his September 24, 2013, Stanislaus County conviction which resulted in a
16
six year prison term and contends he was threatened into a plea.1 (1:16-cv-00175-MJS, ECF No. 1,
17
Petition, at 1.) Because Plaintiff‟s instant challenge to his Stanislaus County conviction and/or
18
sentence is not cognizable by way of a section 1983 complaint, the action must be dismissed for
19
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
20
IV.
21
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant action be dismissed,
22
23
without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
24
25
26
27
28
1
In addition, Plaintiff previously brought an action in this Court in case number 1:16-cv00182-AWI-SAB (PC) and
describes such action as the “same as above.” (ECF No. 1, Compl. at 1.) In that case, a Findings and Recommendation
recommending dismissal of the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief was issued on February 12, 2016.
(ECF No. 6.)
3
1
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days
3
after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with
4
the Court.
5
Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
6
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
7
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
12
March 11, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?