Melger v. Owens
Filing
3
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/10/2018 GRANTING 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and RECOMMENDING that all claims against all defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Hunt, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:18-cv-00018 KJM AC (PS)
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
RONALD SCOTT OWENS, District
Attorney of Placer County,
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
19
undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
20
pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
I. SCREENING
22
The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
23
24
“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
25
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
26
Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting
27
the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”).
28
////
1
1
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
2
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
3
court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
4
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
5
plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
6
Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
7
denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
8
9
The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
10
must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
11
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
12
less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
13
(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
14
inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
15
624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
16
to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
17
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
18
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
19
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
20
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
21
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
22
678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
23
to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
24
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
25
A. The Complaint
26
Plaintiff brings suit against Ronald Scott Owens, District Attorney for Placer County, and
27
“Representative Does 1-to-10,” who are unnamed Deputy District Attorneys. ECF No. 1 at 2.
28
Plaintiff asserts that defendants improperly charged him with felony identity theft arising from an
2
1
incident which should have been charged as shoplifting. Id. at 5-6.
2
B. Analysis
3
The named defendants are immune from suit, and thus this case therefore must be
4
dismissed without leave to amend. Immunity protects a prosecutor who acts within his or her
5
authority and in a quasi-judicial capacity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31(1976).
6
“[A]cts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for
7
trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the
8
protections of absolute immunity.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).
9
Plaintiff’s case is stated only against county prosecutors, who act on behalf of the state, and all
10
allegations relate directly to the actions they took against plaintiff in carrying out their
11
prosecutorial duties. For this reason, the defendants are absolutely immune and the complaint
12
must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (dismissal required where complaint seeks monetary
13
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief). Because this deficiency cannot be
14
cured by amendment, no leave to amend is warranted. See Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448.1
15
II. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY
16
Prosecutors cannot be sued for carrying out their duties, including charging decisions.
17
Because plaintiff’s claims are against defendants who cannot be sued, the court is recommending
18
that the case be dismissed without leave to amend.
19
III. CONCLUSION
20
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to
21
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED.
22
////
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Additionally, if plaintiff has already been convicted in state court, his case is barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994) in which the Supreme court held that a § 1983 action cannot
be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction unless the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make a determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. If plaintiff’s state criminal case is ongoing, it is barred by the abstention
doctrine first announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), which held that federal
courts should not ordinarily enjoin pending criminal proceedings in state courts.
3
1
2
3
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should
be DISMISSED with prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
6
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
7
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
8
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
9
(9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 10, 2018
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?