Lewis v. Siegal et al
Filing
9
ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 2/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISON
7
8
WESLEY LEWIS,
Case No. 16-cv-7279-NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
10
11
SARA SIEGAL, et. al,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8.)
DISCUSSION
16
17
Standard of Review
18
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
19
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
21
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
22
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
23
pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
24
Cir. 1990).
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
26
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
27
statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds
28
upon which it rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although
in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's
2
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
3
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
4
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
5
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
6
proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United
7
States Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly:
8
“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
9
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
10
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
12
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)
13
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
14
alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
15
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16
Legal Claims
17
Plaintiff challenges certain conditions of his parole.
18
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
19
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
20
invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed
21
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
22
make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
23
corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that
24
relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under §
25
1983. Id. at 487.
26
A challenge to a portion of the discretionary parole conditions imposed by the CDCR or
27
parole authority may be pursued in a § 1983 action if success on the claim would not imply the
28
invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction or state court sentence. See Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d
2
1
834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014). “Not all parole conditions are essential to the ‘fact’ of a parolee’s
2
confinement; and a parolee’s challenge to parole terms that are more analogous to ‘conditions’ in
3
the prison context will not speed the parolee’s release from parole.” Id. at 845.
4
Plaintiff states that he was released from CDCR custody in July 2016 but the Santa Cruz
5
Probation Department added terms of his parole that he take all medication prescribed by a doctor.
6
Plaintiff seeks to have this term of parole removed. However, plaintiff is currently in custody at
7
the Santa Cruz County Jail. It is unclear if he is in custody on the underlying conviction for which
8
he was paroled or if he is in custody for another reason such as violating the terms of parole.
If plaintiff is challenging the terms of parole and he is not incarcerated due to the
10
underlying conviction then a § 1983 action may be appropriate. If plaintiff is in custody due to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
violating these parole conditions, then a finding that the conditions are unlawful would undermine
12
the validity of plaintiff’s current jail sentence and he may not proceed with a § 1983 action. See
13
Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In that instance plaintiff would need to file a habeas petition after
14
exhausting state court remedies. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to
15
provide more information concerning why he is incarcerated and how his underlying conviction
16
and terms of parole are related to his current placement in county jail.
CONCLUSION
17
18
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards
19
set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date
20
this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the
21
words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely
22
replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See
23
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from
24
the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the
25
dismissal of this case.
26
2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
27
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
28
Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so
3
1
may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
2
Procedure 41(b).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2017
________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
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?