Arcelus v. Killion et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/8/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,
Plaintiff,

8

WANDA KILLION, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-05719-JD

12
Michael Scott Arcelus, who is being held at Napa State Hospital, has filed a pro se civil

13
14

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

15

DISCUSSION

16

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

8
9

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

12
13
14

LEGAL CLAIMS
Arcelus seeks monetary damages against doctors who allegedly extended his legal

commitment.
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

1983. Id. at 487.

22

In his brief complaint, Arcelus argues that defendants used false information to imprison

23

him and extend his legal commitment pursuant to California Penal Code section 1026, which

24

involves pleas of insanity. He provides little information regarding his underlying commitment

25

and the extension that appears to have occurred in 2014 and 2015. To the extent Arcelus seeks

26

monetary damages he may only continue if the commitment extension has been invalidated or

27

reversed. His arguments that defendants used false information and lied directly apply to the

28

validity of the commitment extension. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to
2

1

provide more information concerning the underlying commitment and the extension and why this

2

action is not barred by Heck.
CONCLUSION

3
4

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must

5

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption

6

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

7

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

8

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

9

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.
2.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

12

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

13

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

14

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

15

Civil Procedure 41(b).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2016

18
19
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

Case No. 15-cv-05719-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

WANDA KILLION, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on January 8, 2016, 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

Michael Scott Arcelus ID: N.A. 2118214
Napa State Hospital
2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy
Napa, CA 94558-6293

19
20
21

Dated: January 8, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4