Patterson v. People of the State of California

Filing 12

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/17/15 ORDERING the clerk of the court assign a district judge to this case. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's amended complaint be dismissed; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN DAMON PATTERSON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-2349 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for violation of

19

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed

20

with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

21

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

23

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

24

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

26

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

27

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

28

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
1

1

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

2

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

3

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital

4

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

5

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

6

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

7

There are two main problems with plaintiff’s amended complaint. First, the only

8

defendant listed is the “People of the State of California.” While this moniker is used by

9

prosecuting entities in this state generally in criminal actions arising under California law,

10

“People of the State of California” is not a proper defendant in a federal civil action. Second, the

11

claims all seem to arise out of the denial of plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2:12-

12

cv-2475 KJM EFB P. To the extent plaintiff believes that case was wrongly decided or has other

13

problems with the manner in which that case proceeded, his concerns should be directed to the

14

Ninth Circuit in the pending appeal concerning the denial of his habeas petition, or in a motion

15

filed in 2:12-cv-2475 KJM EFB P. Initiation of a separate § 1983 action is not proper.1

16

For these reasons, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be

17

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because it does not appear

18

plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint, the court will not grant leave to

19

amend a second time.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district

21

court judge to this case.

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

1

27
28

Ultimately, plaintiff seeks reversal of his convictions. When a state prisoner challenges the
legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier
or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
2

1

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and

3

2. This case be closed.

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

5

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

6

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

7

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

8

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

9

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

10

(9th Cir. 1991).

11

Dated: March 17, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17

1
patt2349.dis

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3