Lockwood v. State of California

Filing 8

ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 8/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISON

7
8

ROBERT LOCKWOOD,

Case No. 17-cv-3999-NJV (PR)

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
10
11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff, a Texas state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.)
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 claims that he was falsely arrested.

18

A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth

19

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that the

20

arrest was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-

21

558 (1967); see, e.g. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918-919 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)

22

(allegations that special prosecutor ordered or otherwise procured arrests and arrests were without

23

probable cause enough to state a § 1983 claim of unlawful arrest against special prosecutor);

24

Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing denial of qualified immunity

25

when there was “no question” that officers had probable cause to believe that plaintiff had

26

committed the actus reus of theft, even though reasonable people could draw different conclusions

27

based on plaintiff's behavior). A claim of bad faith in making an arrest may also be a cause of

28

action under § 1983 as an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,
2

1
2

1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

3

or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence

4

invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed

5

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

6

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

7

corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that

8

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under §

9

1983. Id. at 487.

10

Plaintiff states he was unlawfully arrested in California by San Benito County Sheriff’s

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

officers. He states that he was arrested because of the State of Texas. It is not clear if he was

12

arrested based on a Texas warrant or if there was an independent crime and conviction in

13

California. He seeks money damages and expungment of his criminal record.

14

To challenge his conviction, plaintiff must file a habeas petition. To obtain money

15

damages, plaintiff must first demonstrate that his conviction has been reversed or expunged. The

16

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must provide more information concerning

17

his arrest and conviction. He must also identify the individual San Benito County Sheriffs and

18

describe their actions.
CONCLUSION

19
20

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards

21

set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date

22

this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

23

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

24

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See

25

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from

26

the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

27

dismissal of this case.

28

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
3

1

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

2

Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

3

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 41(b).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2017
________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

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