(PC) Robertson v. Willows Police Department et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/14/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; however, no fee is imposed; this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim, and because this deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH WAYNE ROBERTSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WILLOWS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. 2:17-cv-0352 AC P

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States

20

Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). See

21

ECF No. 13.

22

Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to proceed in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(a). See ECF Nos. 6, 12. However, because this action will be dismissed, no fee will be

24

imposed.

25

This court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

26

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

27

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

28

legally “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
1

1

monetary relief from an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A pro se litigant

2

is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and an opportunity to amend, if it appears

3

that the deficiencies can be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th

4

Cir. 1987).

5
6
7

Review of the instant complaint demonstrates that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Plaintiff’s six-page complaint is set forth on a form used by the United States District

8

Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was originally filed in that district on

9

November 20, 2016, and transferred to this court on February 15, 2017. Plaintiff was then

10

incarcerated at California State Prison Solano (CSP-SOL), where he remains.

11

The complaint names four defendants: (1) Willows Police Officer Michael Stover, (2)

12

plaintiff’s trial counsel, Colusa attorney Albert Smith, (3) Glenn County Superior Court Judge

13

Donald Cole Byrd, and (4) Glenn County Assistant District Attorney Ruby Neumann. Plaintiff

14

alleges that Officer Stover “falsified statements & tampered with evidence” relative to his “illegal

15

search & seizure” in violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights; that both attorneys and the

16

judge “took part in this malicious prosecution” against plaintiff; that defense counsel Smith polled

17

only 49 potential jurors, allowed protected statements to be admitted at trial in violation of

18

plaintiff’s rights under Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and failed to introduce

19

exculpatory evidence, thus providing ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.

20

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); and that Judge Byrd “allowed tampered evidence in the

21

courtroom,” and improperly denied plaintiff’s good cause hearing. The relief sought by the

22

complaint is “Vacate sentence. Award 1,000,000 dollars in damages.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff

23

avers that he did not administratively exhaust his claims because this cases “deal[s] with my

24

conviction.” ECF No. 1 at 2.

25

Plaintiff is informed that federal courts offer two main avenues for challenging one’s state

26

imprisonment – a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a petition for habeas

27

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Challenges to the conditions of one’s confinement are

28

brought in a civil rights action, while challenges to the validity or duration of one’s confinement
2

1

(conviction and/or sentence) are brought in a habeas action. There are important conditions

2

precedent to both types of actions – a civil rights action may be brought only after plaintiff has

3

exhausted his prison administrative remedies, while a habeas action may be brought only after

4

petitioner has exhausted his claims in the state courts. Although money damages may be

5

obtained pursuant to a successful civil rights action, they may not be obtained in a habeas action.

6

Plaintiff does not challenge the conditions of his confinement, and concedes that he has

7

not exhausted any administrative remedies. Therefore, this action cannot proceed under 42

8

U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, two of the named defendants are immune from suit.1

9

Nor can plaintiff obtain the relief he seeks under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Review of California

10

appellate court dockets2 indicates that plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from his conviction on

11

November 10, 2015. However, the appeal has not yet been decided and was not fully briefed

12

until March 29, 2017. See California Court of Appeal, Third District, Case No. C080705 (People

13

v. Roberson). There is no indication that plaintiff has sought review or habeas corpus from the

14

California Supreme Court. Because plaintiff has not exhausted potential habeas claims in the

15

state courts, this court would be unable to grant relief in a habeas proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

16

2254(b)(1)(A).

17

For these several reasons, the court finds that plaintiff’s pleading cannot be cured by

18

amendment, and that this action must be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

19

that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; however, no fee is imposed.

21

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim, and

22

because this deficiency cannot be cured by amendment.

23

1

24
25
26
27
28

District attorneys are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under Section 1983 which
challenge activities related to the initiation and presentation of criminal prosecutions. See Imbler
v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Similarly, judges acting within the course and scope
of their judicial duties are absolutely immune from liability for damages under Section 1983. See
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
2
This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See
United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631
F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts
that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned).
3

1
2

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
DATED: April 14, 2017

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4