(PC) Albritton v. State of California et al

Filing 7

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 7/26/2024 GRANTING 4 Motion to Proceed IFP, ORDERING that within 30 days from the service of this order plaintiff may file an amended complaint, and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to randomly assign a district judge. It is RECOMMENDED that 6 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied. District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson assigned for all further proceedings. Referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days of service of these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:24-cv-1424-TLN-JDP (PC). (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVINCHE JAVON ALBRITTON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 2:24-cv-01424-JDP (PC)
ORDER
SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT,
GRANTING HIS APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT
JUDGE TO THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18
19

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

20

ECF Nos. 1, 4, & 6

21
22

Plaintiff DeVinche Albritton is a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

23

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff brings this action against the State of

24

California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In the complaint,

25

plaintiff seeks to provide voter registration forms to all California inmates and delay the deadline

26
27
28

Plaintiff opened this action by filing a document titled, “Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
and/or an Emergency Order for Injunctive Relief.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff later filed a motion for
an “Emergency Injunction.” ECF No. 6. Out of an abundance of caution, I reviewed plaintiff’s
initial filing as a complaint.
1
1

1

to add his name to the California ballot as an independent presidential candidate. Plaintiff has

2

also filed a motion seeking injunctive relief for the same requests laid out in the complaint.

3

Because the complaint fails to state a claim, I dismiss it without prejudice to refiling, and I will

4

recommend that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. I will also grant plaintiff’s application

5

to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the required showing.

6
7

Screening and Pleading Requirements
A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental

8

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable

9

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

10

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

11

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

12

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

14

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not

15

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

16

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

17

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not

18

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,

19

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that

20

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264

21

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

22

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

23

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it

24

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

25

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

26

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

27

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,

28

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
2

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiff, who is an inmate in Virginia, requests that every California inmate be provided

3

with a voter registration application and that California extend its presidential ballot deadline so

4

that he can circulate a petition for his candidacy to California voters. ECF No. 1 at 1-5. Plaintiff

5

explains that on April 12 of this year he became an official 2024 Independent Presidential

6

Candidate and wishes to have his name on the November 2024 ballot. Plaintiff claims that his

7

request is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100

8

(2024). According to the complaint, the Supreme Court ruled in that case that every citizen has

9

the right to vote, which includes those who are presently incarcerated.

10

As an initial matter, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, cannot represent other individuals.

11

See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (2009) (parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally in all

12

federal courts); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting an

13

individual appearing pro se may not represent other individuals in federal court). Therefore, he

14

cannot bring claims on behalf of all California inmates.

15

Even if plaintiff could bring claims on behalf of all California inmates, he would not be

16

entitled to the relief he seeks because imprisoned felons in California do not have the right to

17

vote. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly

18

provides that the right to vote may be abridged for participation in a crime. This section has been

19

interpreted as allowing a state to disenfranchise those convicted of a crime, including those who

20

have completed their sentences and paroles. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 56 (1974).

21

And California does not permit imprisoned felons the right to vote. See Cal. Const. Art. II, § 4;

22

Cal. Elec. Code § 2101 (“A person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a

23

resident of California, not imprisoned for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age

24

at the time of the next election.”); Harris v. Dir. of C.D.C.R., No. 18-CV-01114-JST, 2018 WL

25

11302949, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018) (“The California Constitution disqualifies individuals

26

who are imprisoned on a felony from voting.”).

27
28

Finally, because the complaint fails to explain how California’s presidential candidacy
deadline is unconstitutional, this claim will also be dismissed.
3

1

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will

2

supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir.

3

2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face

4

without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended

5

complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended

6

complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each

7

defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First

8

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

9

Motion for Injunctive Relief

10

In order to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must show (1) likelihood of success on the

11

merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance

12

of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res.

13

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “The first factor under Winter is the most important—

14

likely success on the merits.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). Here,

15

plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, since, as explained above, the

16

complaint fails to state a claim.

17

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is granted.

19

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended

20

complaint. If he does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

21

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

22

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF

23
24

No. 6, be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

25

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of

26

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

27

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

28

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
4

1

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

2

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

3

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

4

1991).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:

July 26, 2024

8

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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