Bell v. Muniz, et al
Filing
18
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 9/18/2014. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
PATRICK B. BELL,
Case No. 14-cv-02947-VC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
9
10
JONATHAN MUNIZ, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Patrick B. Bell, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
13
14
complaint against officers of the Oakland Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bell
15
has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a completed IFP
16
application, which is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims asserted in
17
Bell’s complaint.
DISCUSSION
18
19
20
I.
Standard of Review
A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
21
governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to identify any cognizable
22
claims and dismiss any that: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which
23
relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
24
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
25
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
26
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
27
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
28
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
1
42, 48 (1988).
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the
2
3
plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the
4
deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections &
5
Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
6
1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if
7
he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or fails to perform an act which
8
he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844
9
F.2d at 633. But there is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983. Lemire, 726 F.3d at
1074. That is, a supervisor is not liable merely because the supervisor is responsible, in general
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
terms, for the actions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v.
12
Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may
13
be liable only on a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a
14
sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional
15
violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). It is insufficient for a
16
plaintiff to allege generally that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation or that they
17
generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without alleging “a specific
18
policy” or “a specific event” instigated by them that led to the constitutional violation. Hydrick v.
19
Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012).
20
II.
Bell's Allegations
21
In his complaint, Bell alleges the following:
22
On July 7, 2012, Oakland police officers arrested him on a charge of robbery. Officer
23
Jonathan Muniz's recording device is so obscured that it shows he planted inculpatory evidence.
24
Officers Dill, Smith and R. Saleh acquiesced in the planting of evidence because they failed to
25
record Muniz's search. Muniz and Dill failed to preserve evidence that was potentially favorable
26
to Bell. Sergeant E. Mausz and Officer Joseph Jochim acquiesced in the wrongdoing.
27
28
2
1
III.
Bell's Claims
2
3
To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for
4
other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
5
§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
6
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
7
determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See
8
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship
9
to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id.
at 487. Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an arrest or prosecution. See
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (Heck bars plaintiff's claims that defendants
12
lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges against him).
13
Because Bell is incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, he has been convicted of some
14
crime. If he is incarcerated because he was convicted on the robbery charge at issue in his
15
complaint, his claim would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey unless he can show that the conviction
16
or sentence was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
17
state tribunal or called into question by a court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
18
Therefore, Bell's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. He must either show that he
19
was not convicted of the robbery offense, or if he was that the conviction has been reversed,
20
expunged, declared invalid or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
21
CONCLUSION
22
Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
23
1. Bell's Fourth Amendment claim is dismissed because of the likelihood that it is barred
24
by Heck v. Humphrey. He is given leave to amend to add allegations discussed above, if he can
25
show in good faith that his claim is not barred by Heck.
26
2. Bell may, if he can do so in good faith, file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). If Bell
27
files a FAC, he must do so within twenty-eight days from the date of this order. If he does not file
28
a FAC within this time, the case will be closed, without prejudice to filing a new complaint if the
3
1
status of his conviction changes such that he would be permitted to bring a civil rights action.
2
3. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this
3
Order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended
4
complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Bell must include in it all the claims he
5
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not
6
incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.
7
4. It is Bell’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Bell must keep the Court informed of
any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of
9
Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may
10
result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
Procedure 41(b).
12
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PATRICK B. BELL,
Case No. 14-cv-02947-VC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
10
JONATHAN MUNIZ, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 9/18/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
Patrick B. Bell ID: AU4562
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974
19
20
Dated: 9/18/2014
21
22
23
Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
By:________________________
Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA
27
28
5
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?