Evans v. Carlock et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Action for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/28/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R Due within Fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD EVANS,

8

Plaintiffs

9
10

v.
LISA CARLOCK, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00440-DAD-BAM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

12
Plaintiff Richard Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

13
14
15
16
17

pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 2, 2018, is currently
pending before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
I.

Screening Requirement and Standard
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
18

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

19
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
20
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C.
21
22
23
24

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

25

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

26

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as

27

true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

28
1

1

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires

3

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable

4

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United

5

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

6

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the

7

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

8

II.

Plaintiff Allegations

9

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran,

10

California. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Officer Lisa Carlock, (2) Officer

11

Stephen Brown, (3) Officer Bryan Hamilton (police officers with the Suisun Police Department);

12

(4) Solano County Prosecutor Llana Jacobs, (5) Solano County Public Defender Sara Johnson, (6)

13

Solano County Judge Jeffrey Tauber; (7) Solano County Judge Wendy Getty, (8) Solano County

14

Appellate Attorney John Schuck; and (9) the First District Court of Appeal.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff alleges that the Suisun Police Officers Carlock, Brown, and Hamilton committed
perjury and falsified evidence during his July 26, 2016 preliminary hearing by planting images
and videos on his laptop and altering his interrogation transcript which resulted in his wrongful
conviction. Plaintiff alleges that his criminal case would have been dismissed at the preliminary
hearing but for defendants’ actions. (ECF No. 1 at 5.)
Plaintiff further alleges that county prosecutor Jacobs falsified evidence, suppressed
exculpatory evidence, and submitted tampered evidence prior to his trial. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Public
Defender Johnson further concealed exculpatory evidence from the state court during his
preliminary hearing and during his interrogation. Plaintiff also alleges that Defender Johnson
provided insufficient legal counsel by failing to challenge the prosecutions’ Brady v. Maryland

24
violations. (ECF No. 1 at 7.)
25
Plaintiff also challenges various rulings made by Judges Tauber and Getty during his
26
preliminary hearing and trial. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Lastly, Plaintiff challenges the assistance
27
provided by his court appointed attorney on appeal and the rulings made by the First District
28
2

1

Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 1 at 11.)

2

A review of the Solano County Superior Court records indicate that Plaintiff was

3

convicted of a felony in People v. Evans, Case No. FCR319582, on April 1, 2017. Further, the

4

records from the First District Court of Appeals indicate that Plaintiff’s appeal of that conviction

5

is currently pending. See The People v. Evans, Case No. A154841. 1
As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to reverse his conviction, expunge his record, and award

6
7

monetary damages in the amount of $5,000,000. (ECF No. 1 at 12.)

8

III.

1.

9

Abstention

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that abstention is appropriate and therefore will

10
11

Discussion

recommend against exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action.

12

“Younger abstention is a common law equitable doctrine holding that a federal court

13

generally should refrain from interfering with a pending state court proceeding.” Poulos v.

14

Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654, 669 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Younger abstention is

15

required if (1) state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state

16
17

interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
Wiener v. County of San Diego, 23 F.3d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s state court proceedings are ongoing, as the appeal of the conviction is pending.

18
19
20
21
22
23

That proceeding implicates important state interests and also provides an adequate opportunity for
Plaintiff to raise federal questions. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983)
(“When . . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be petitioner must await
the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted.”). However, even if the Court
did not abstain under Younger, Plaintiff’s complaint would fail for the reasons set forth below.
2.

Claims Against Officers Carlock, Brown and Hamilton are Duplicative

24
In his first claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that officers Carlock, Brown, and Hamilton
25

misrepresented and falsified evidence during Plaintiff’s July 26, 2016, preliminary hearing. On

26
1

27
28

The court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of matters of public record. See
U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, this court may take judicial notice of state court
records, see Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964), as well as its own records,
see Chandler v. U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967).

3

1

September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed Evans v. Suisun Police Department, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01889-

2

KJM-CMK (“Evans I”). The complaint filed in Evans I also complains that Defendants Carlock,

3

Brown, and Hamilton “misrepresented and falsified evidence” during Plaintiff’s July 26, 2016

4

preliminary hearing. Evans I resulted in dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim (2:17-cv-

5

01889, ECF Nos. 13, 16).

6

Because court records indicate that Plaintiff sued Defendants Carlock, Brown, and

7

Hamilton in an earlier-filed action for “concealing, misrepresenting, and falsifying evidence as

8

testifying officers at [his] preliminary hearing,” Plaintiff may not bring this duplicative suit

9

against Defendants Carlock, Brown, and Hamilton. Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff

10

proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under 28

11

U.S.C. § 1915(e). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving

12

the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’”

13

Adams v. Cal. Dept. Of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Walton v.

14

Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

15

553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 171 L. Ed. 2d 155 (2008)).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissing Defendants Carlock, Brown, and
Hamilton with prejudice based on the duplicative nature of the allegations. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also Adams v. California, 487 F.3d 684, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal
of a duplicative lawsuit “promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of
litigation” finding that a plaintiff is required to bring all claims that relate to the same transaction
or event at one time), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct.
2161, 171 L. Ed. 2d 155 (2008); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995)
(holding that a complaint that “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” may be
dismissed as frivolous under the authority of then-numbered 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).

24
3.
25

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

To the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint can be interpreted as a request that the Court

26
review the state court proceeding, this Court lacks jurisdiction to do so. Federal courts lack
27
jurisdiction to review or modify state court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
28
4

1

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); District of

2

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206

3

(1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on Title 28 of the United States Code section 1257

4

which grants the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction to review decisions of the highest state

5

courts for compliance with the federal Constitution. See Rooker, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68

6

L. Ed. 362; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303. The doctrine provides that “lower federal

7

courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court; only the

8

United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.” Gottfried v.

9

Medical Planning Services, 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir. 1998). “This is equally true in

10

constitutional cases brought under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, since federal courts must give 'full faith

11

and credit’ to the judicial proceedings of state courts.’” Gottfried, 142 F.3d at 330 (citing 28

12

U.S.C. § 1738).

13

“Federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review such final adjudications

14

or to exclude constitutional claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined with the state court’s

15

[decision] in a judicial proceeding.’” Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3rd Cir. 1992)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, n. 16). This rule applies to ‘“inextricably intertwined’ with
final state court decisions, even if such inextricably intertwined” claims were not raised in state
court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-487 and n. 16;
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362; Olson Farms, Inc. v.
Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is
jurisdictional). Thus, “a losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would
be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing
party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v.
DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-1006, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 129 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1994).

24
In sum, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court
25
judgments.
26
4.

The First District Court of Appeals is Not Amenable To Suit

27
Plaintiff seeks to hold the First District Court of Appeals liable as a Defendant. The First
28
5

1

District Court of Appeals is an arm of the state and thus under the Eleventh Amendment cannot

2

be sued in federal court. See, e.g., Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d

3

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (11th Amendment bars suit against state superior court and its

4

employees); Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir.), amended, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.

5

1997) (state case law and constitutional provisions make clear that California Superior Court is a

6

state agency); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (California municipal

7

court is arm of state protected from lawsuit by 11th Amendment immunity); Greater Los Angeles

8

Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 & n. 10 (9th Cir. 1987) (11th

9

Amendment bars suit against Superior Court of State of California regardless of relief sought).

10

Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the First District Court of Appeals fails to state a cognizable claim

11

as to the appellate court.

12

5.

13

Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that the state court judges and prosecutors he names as

14

Defendants are immune from liability under section 1983. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of

15

Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally accorded to judges

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Judges, Prosecutors and Public Defenders are Not Amenable to Suit

and prosecutors functioning in their official capacities”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075
(9th Cir. 1986) (holding that judges and prosecutors are immune from liability for damages under
section 1983). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Judges Tauber and Getty under Section 1983
should be dismissed.
State prosecutors are absolutely immune when performing functions “intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
430, 96 S. Ct. 984, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1976). That is, “when performing the traditional functions
of an advocate.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 131, 118 S. Ct. 502, 139 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1997).
“Absolute immunity applies when ‘initiating a prosecution’ and ‘presenting the State’s case,’ and
during ‘professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and appropriate
preparation for its presentation at trial . . . after a decision to seek an indictment has been made.’”

26
Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted).
27

Hence, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Llana Jacobs and John Schuck in their individual

28
6

1

capacity for money damages are barred by prosecutorial immunity and should be dismissed.

2

Moreover, in Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S. Ct. 445, 70 L. Ed. 2d 509

3

(1981), the United States Supreme Court held that public defenders do not act “under color of

4

state law” when performing traditional lawyer duties. Miranda v. Clark County, 319 F.3d 465,

5

468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because a defendant must have acted under color of state law to be

6

liable under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a public defender is not a proper defendant in

7

such action. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim against Sara Johnson should be dismissed.

8

6.

9

Lastly, because Plaintiff’s complaint can be interpreted as a challenge of the legality of his

10

custody, Plaintiff is advised that his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v.

11

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1245-48, 161 L. Ed. 2d 253 (2005); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

12

411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.

13

1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1126, 111 S. Ct. 1090, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1194 (1991). Moreover, when

14

seeking relief for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff

15

must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

16
17
18
19
20

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). “A claim . .
. bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488.
Plaintiff alleges that he would have never been convicted but for the Defendants’ actions

21
22
23

Habeas Corpus is Proper Remedy

or inaction. Thus, success on his claim necessarily implies the invalidity of his criminal
conviction. Given that there is no indication that Plaintiff’s conviction has been invalidated or set
aside, the claim is not cognizable pursuant to § 1983.

24
25

IV.

Conclusion and Recommendation

26

Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY

27

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice to Plaintiff’s

28

further pursuit of his claims in an appropriate action.
7

1

These 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 fourteen

3

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

4

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

5

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

6

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

7

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

8

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

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 28, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8