Harding v. Eixenberger
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/22/2016 DISMISSING plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 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
BRENT LEE HARDING,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-0116 CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MEGAN EIXENBERGER,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. He has consented to have all matters in this
19
action before a United State Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
20
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
22
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
23
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
24
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
25
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
26
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
27
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
28
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
1
1
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
2
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
3
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
4
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
5
which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
6
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
7
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt
8
Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under
9
this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital
10
Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light
11
most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v.
12
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
13
The court has conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s amended
14
complaint. As with his original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint concerns the actions of
15
the deputy district attorney who represented the State of California during criminal proceedings
16
which culminated in plaintiff accepting a plea agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages. As plaintiff
17
was informed with respect to his original complaint, a prisoner cannot proceed with a claim for
18
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which implies the invalidity of his criminal conviction. Heck v.
19
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Further, plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct are vague
20
and would not otherwise amount to an actionable claim. In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s
21
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. The
22
court will not grant leave to amend a second time as it appears that would be futile.
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
3
4
5
relief can be granted; and
2. This case is closed.
Dated: March 22, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
hard0116.dis
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?