Peeler v. Reali et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/21/16 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRICE ANTHONY PEELER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0582 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KEVIN REALI, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2016, plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with thirty

19

days’ leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court for

20

screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge

21

jurisdiction over all proceedings this action. (ECF No. 4.)

22

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that Sacramento County Detective Reali caused

23

plaintiff to be maliciously prosecuted on a criminal firearm count. At trial, plaintiff was acquitted

24

of this count, though found guilty of other counts stemming from the same incident. (See ECF

25

No. 5.) In the amended complaint, plaintiff names additional defendants in Sacramento County

26

law enforcement, including the prosecutor in plaintiff’s case, Aaron Miller. (ECF No. 10.)

27

Plaintiff asserts that Miller maliciously amended the information to charge him with two

28

additional felonies after plaintiff filed an excessive force claim against the officers involved in
1

1

plaintiff’s arrest. (Id. at 20-21, 31-36, 42.) Plaintiff was subsequently found not guilty of one of

2

these charges. (Id. at 83.) Plaintiff alleges that malicious prosecution is “persistent and

3

widespread” in Sacramento County, amounting to a municipal policy. (Id. at 17.)

4

Having reviewed the amended complaint and attached records, the undersigned concludes

5

that it fails to cure the defects of the original complaint as discussed in the May 20, 2016

6

screening order. Plaintiff fails to state a malicious prosecution claim under the standard in

7

Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995) and has not alleged an

8

unconstitutional county policy. Because it appears that another round of amendment would be

9

futile, the undersigned will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice

11

for failure to state a claim.

12

Dated: September 21, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

2 / peel0582.fac

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2