Schmidt v. Thinh et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/04/15 granting 5 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the court's order to the Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file and amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE GLEN SCHMIDT,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2868 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

TAN THINH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1).

21
22

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

23

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§

24

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the

25

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court.

26

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

27

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

28

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account
1

1

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

2

I. Screening Standard

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

9

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

10

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

11

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

12

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

13

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

14

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

15

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

16

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

17

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

18

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

19

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

20

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

21

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

22

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

23

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

24

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007),

25

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

26

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

27

////

28

////
2

1
2

II. Analysis
Plaintiff claims that three employees of the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office

3

violated his civil rights by filing a felony complaint against him based on false representations.

4

He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

5

Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable, as prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits

6

for damages under § 1983 which challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of

7

criminal prosecutions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Determining whether a

8

prosecutor’s actions are immunized requires a functional analysis. The classification of the

9

challenged acts, not the motivation underlying them, determines whether absolute immunity

10

applies. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). The prosecutor’s quasi-

11

judicial functions, rather than administrative or investigative functions, are absolutely immune.

12

Thus, even charges of malicious prosecution, falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured

13

testimony and concealment of exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial

14

immunity. See Stevens v. Rifkin, 608 F. Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

15

Because the PLRA requires dismissal of a complaint seeking monetary relief from a

16

defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(2), this action must be dismissed.

17

However, plaintiff will be accorded one opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to

18

allege facts stating a cognizable claim.

19

III. Leave to Amend

20

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

21

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

22

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

23

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

24

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

25

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

26

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

27

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

28

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
3

1

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

2

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

3

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

4

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

5

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

6

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

7

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

8

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted.

10

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees

11

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Sheriff of Sacramento

12

County filed concurrently herewith.

13

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

14

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

15

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number

17

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and

18

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

19

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

20

Dated: March 4, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2 / schm2868.14.new

28
4