Ford v. Bryan et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/28/2016 DISMISSING plaintiff's amended complaint; and this case is closed. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-2635 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ANDREA BRYAN, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to have all matters before a United States Magistrate

19

Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 3, 2016, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with

20

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

As in his original complaint, the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint concern the

15

criminal proceedings which resulted in plaintiff being incarcerated. Plaintiff does not clarify the

16

relief he seeks.

17

As plaintiff was informed in the court’s March 3, 2016 order dismissing plaintiff’s

18

original complaint with leave to amend, to the extent he seeks release, his sole federal remedy is a

19

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). To the extent he seeks

20

damages, his claims are barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

21

477, 487 (1994). In any case, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a

22

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed. Because granting

23
24

leave to amend a second time appears futile, leave will not be granted.

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and

3

2. This case is closed.

4

Dated: April 28, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
ford2635.dis

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3