Robben v. Calaveras County Superior Court et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/01/18 ORDERING plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff's motion to stay 14 is DENIED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

TODD ROBBEN,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2884-JAM-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

CALAVERAS COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, et. al.,

16
Defendants.
17

/

18

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has also

20

filed a motion to stay (Doc. 14).

21

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

22

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

24

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

25

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

26

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
1

1

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

2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement

3

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means

4

that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

5

1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

6

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

7

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

8

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

9

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

10

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

11

and conclusory.

12
13

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff’s complaint is vague and difficult to interpret. He brings this action

14

against the Calaveras County Superior Court, Grant V. Barret (Calaveras County Superior Court

15

Judge), California Attorney General, and Andrea R. Austin (Deputy Attorney General). Plaintiff

16

is complaining about the filings in a Calaveras County case, and the possible use of a fax filing

17

agency. He is claiming, inter alia, fraud, a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment

18

rights, and denial of due process.

19
20

II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from a number of defects. In order to state a claim

21

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the actions

22

of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436

23

U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the

24

deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act,

25

participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required

26

to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,
2

1

743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official

2

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

3

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual

4

defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

5

628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

6

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

7

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

8

1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based

9

on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

10

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

11

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,

12

640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

13

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

14

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

15

of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other

16

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

17

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

18

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

19

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

20

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

21

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

22

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

23

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

24

416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

25
26

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil
3

1

Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the

2

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d

3

646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt

4

acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. See id. Plaintiff fails to make the

5

connection between the acts alleged and who the actor was. Plaintiff’s complaint must be

6

dismissed for failure to state a claim.

7

In addition, plaintiff brings this action against immune defendants. Judges are

8

absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their

9

courts. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). This

10

immunity is lost only when the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performs an

11

act that is not judicial in nature. See id. Judges retain their immunity even when they are

12

accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per

13

curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978), and when they are accused of acting

14

in error, see Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999). This immunity

15

extends to the actions of court personnel when they act as “an integral part of the judicial

16

process.” See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). To the

17

extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an

18

act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted

19

unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 983.

20

Plaintiff has not allege any such circumstances.

21

Similarly, prosecutorial immunity protects eligible government officials when

22

they are acting pursuant to their official role as advocate for the state. See Imbler v. Pachtman,

23

424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). This immunity extends to actions during both the pre-trial and post-

24

trial phases of a case. See Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 1984). State

25

prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts taken in their official

26

capacity. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123-25 (1997).
4

1

It is not clear as to what happened that plaintiff is complaining about, but it

2

appears that what occurred happened during some proceedings in the Calaveras County Court.

3

Thus, it would appear that the two individuals named as defendants would be immune from such

4

an action.

5

The only other defendants named are the Calaveras County Superior Court and the

6

California Attorney General. However, it appears that these two entities are simply identifying

7

who the two individuals are, and where they are employed. To the extent plaintiff is actually

8

attempting to name these entities as defendants, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal

9

courts from hearing suits brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of

10

other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.

11

1991). This prohibition extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state

12

agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v.

13

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and

14

correction of prisoners is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama

15

v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th

16

cir. 1993) (en banc). “As an arm of the State of California, the County Superior Court is immune

17

from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.” Lofthus v. Long Beach Veterans Hosp., 214

18

F.Supp.3d 908, 912 (CACD 2016) (citing Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v. Zolin,

19

812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[A] suit against the Superior Court is a suit against the

20

state, barred by the Eleventh Amendment”)); see also Krainski v. State, 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th

21

Cir. 2010).

22

As it appears the only defendants named in the complaint are immune, and the

23

complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations for the court to determine whether plaintiff’s claims

24

are frivolous, the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an

25

amended complaint in order to cure the deficiencies therein. Plaintiff is cautioned that any

26

amended complaint filed must meet the pleading requirements set forth herein.
5

1
2

III. MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff has also filed motion to stay due to difficulties he was experiencing while

3

housed at the El Dorado County Jail. Plaintiff has since been transferred to the California

4

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. His request therefore will be denied.

5
6

IV. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

7

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

8

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

9

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

10

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

11

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

12

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

13

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

14

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be

15

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

20

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

21

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). As the only

22

defendants named in the complaint are entitled to immunity, plaintiff must also show how that

23

immunity has been lost or that some exception applies.

24

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

25

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

26

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
6

1

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

2

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

5

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

6
7
8

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

service of this order; and
3.
Dated: August 1, 2018

Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 14) is denied.