Bird v. Skillman, et al.
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/3/17 recommending that this action be dismissed. F&R referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DONALD M. BIRD,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
No. 2:16-cv-2352-GEB-CMK
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
SKILLMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is
plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and a motion to transfer to another judge (Doc. 6).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been
22
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening
23
provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
24
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
25
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and
26
1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must
1
1
dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter
2
. . . .” Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma
3
pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
4
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and
5
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
6
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
7
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
8
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
9
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although a pro se
10
litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those
11
pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice
12
of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th
13
Cir. 1995).
14
In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain
15
more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
16
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” ” Bell Atlantic Corp.
17
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). While “[s]pecific facts are not
18
necessary; the statement [of facts] need . . . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
19
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200
20
(2007) (internal quotes omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
21
accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, see id., and construe the pleading in
22
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
23
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
24
Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear. It appears plaintiff is attempting to challenge a
25
citation he received in Tehama County for fishing without a license. Plaintiff alludes to some
26
type of trial before Judge Skillman, named as a defendant to this action, wherein it appears
2
1
plaintiff was fined $790.00 for fishing without a license, first offense. He also mentions
2
attempting to challenge the requirement for a California Driver’s License, or the suspension
3
thereof, for failure to pay the above mentioned fine.
4
II. DISCUSSION
5
Although the complaint is vague, it appears this is plaintiff’s second attempt at
6
challenging his citation for fishing without a license. In plaintiff’s prior case1, Bird v. County of
7
Tehama, et al., case number 2:13-cv-2549-MCE-CKD, the court found the complaint vague and
8
conclusory, and informed plaintiff that such a complaint was insufficient. That case, which also
9
appeared to challenge his conviction for unlawful fishing, was dismissed as barred under Heck v.
10
Humphrey, 512, U.S. 477 (1994). Despite the court’s caution, the complaint filed in this case is
11
just as vague and conclusory as the complaint filed in plaintiff’s prior action.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and
12
13
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
14
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
15
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
16
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
17
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although a pro se
18
litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those
19
pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice
20
of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th
21
Cir. 1995).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not include a short and plain statement of the
22
23
claim, and is almost unintelligible. The complaint therefore fails to meet the pleading
24
25
26
1
A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v.
Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th
Cir. 1980).
3
1
requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiffs’ statements are simply too vague and conclusory for the court
2
to determine whether this action is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or is barred by res
3
judicata.
4
Two related doctrines of preclusion are grouped under the term “res judicata.”
5
See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008). One of these doctrines –
6
claim preclusion – forecloses “successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not
7
relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” Id. Stated another way,
8
“[c]laim preclusion. . . bars any subsequent suit on claims that were raised or could have been
9
raised in a prior action.” Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Group, Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th
10
Cir. 2009). “Newly articulated claims based on the same nucleus of facts are also subject to a
11
res judicata finding if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action.” Stewart v. U.S.
12
Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, claim preclusion prevents a plaintiff from
13
later presenting any legal theories arising from the “same transactional nucleus of facts.” Hells
14
Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 686 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). The
15
second – issue preclusion – “bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated
16
and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue
17
recurs in the context of a different claim.” Taylor, 128 S. Ct. at 2171 (internal citation, quotation
18
omitted). As it appears plaintiff is attempting to challenge the same underlying conviction for
19
unlawful fishing that he was challenging in his prior case, it would appear this case is likely
20
barred by res judicata.
21
Regardless, the undersigned finds, as was found in plaintiff’s prior case, that his
22
attempt to challenge his conviction for unlawful fishing in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is
23
barred by Heck. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court
24
held that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional
25
conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “that the conviction or sentence
26
has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
4
1
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
2
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, the
3
court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case would
4
necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the complaint must be
5
dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. The
6
undersigned finds that plaintiff’s action implicates the validity of his conviction for unlawful
7
fishing and is thus barred by Heck. Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to show that the
8
conviction has been invalidated in his response to these findings and recommendation.
9
III. REQUEST TO TRANSFER
10
Frustrated with the length of time the court has taken to address plaintiff’s
11
complaint, he has requested the transfer of this action to another judge. Plaintiff offers no
12
adequate grounds for the removal of the undersigned from this case, such as bias or prejudice
13
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. To the extent plaintiff was attempting to bring a motion to
14
disqualify the undersigned, the request as filed is insufficient. To be sufficient, such a motion
15
must state facts which, if true, fairly support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from
16
an extrajudicial source and which may prevent a fair decision. See U.S. v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d
17
735, 740-41 (1976). The Supreme Court in Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot
18
constitute the necessary showing of bias or prejudice. See Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22,
19
34 (1922). There are simply no grounds on which to grant plaintiff’s request.
20
21
IV. CONCLUSION
The undersigned finds this action is likely barred by res judicata and is barred by
22
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) as a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case would
23
implicate the validity of the underlying conviction he is challenging. Plaintiff may be heard on
24
these issues by filing objections to these findings and recommendation. If plaintiff files
25
objections to these findings and recommendations, he will also be required to address the lack of
26
factual allegations sufficient to state a claim if any leave to amend is to be considered.
5
1
However, it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
2
cured by amending the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend at this
3
time. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
4
5
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be
dismissed.
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
9
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
10
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
11
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
13
14
15
DATED: February 3, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
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?