Davis v. Suhr et al

Filing 32

ORDER REOPENING CASE, Motions terminated: 31 MOTION filed by John L. Davis. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/1/19. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN L. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
GREG SUHR, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04487-JD

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. No. 31

12
13

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

14

action was stayed pending the outcome of plaintiff’s criminal proceeding. Plaintiff has filed an

15

amended motion to lift the stay and indicates that he pled no contest in his domestic violence case.

16

The stay is lifted and the Court will review the amended and second amended complaints.
DISCUSSION

17
18

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Cir. 1990).

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

12

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

13

LEGAL CLAIMS

14

Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of a false arrest due to a conspiracy of local and

15

federal law enforcement. He seeks money damages. In order to recover damages for an allegedly

16

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

17

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must

18

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

19

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

20

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

21

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

22

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.
A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that the arrest
was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-558
(1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014, n.1. (9th Cir. 2015) (absence of
probable cause is essential element of § 1983 false arrest claim); see, e.g., Fortson v. Los Angles
City Atty’s Office, 852 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (existence of probable cause is complete
defense to § 1983 claim alleging false arrest). A claim of bad faith in making an arrest may also
be a cause of action under § 1983 as an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. See Bretz v. Kelman,
773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Where officers have no lawful basis for stopping
an individual, they have no lawful basis for pursuing an arrest for resisting, impeding, or
obstructing a peace officer when that individual does not accede to the investigatory stop.
Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015).

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

Plaintiff states that various San Francisco Police Officers and federal officials conspired to

2

have him arrested and they were trying to kill him. However, plaintiff pled no contest to some of

3

the criminal charges therefore his request to obtain damages is barred by Heck, unless the

4

conviction is later reversed or overturned. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief regarding a

5

conspiracy to investigate and arrest him that would not be barred by Heck, he has failed to state a

6

claim for relief. Simply stating that the local and federal officials were conspiring against him is

7

insufficient. He must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his

8

constitutional rights. He will be provided one last opportunity to amend.
CONCLUSION

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

1.

The motion to lift the stay (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED. The stay is LIFTED

and this case is REOPENED.
2.

The amended and second amended complaints are DISMISSED with leave to

13

amend. The third amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

dismissal of this case.

20

3.

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Civil Procedure 41(b).

25
26
27
28
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2019

3
4
JAMES DONATO
United States District 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN L. DAVIS,

Case No. 16-cv-04487-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

GREG SUHR, 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 July 1, 2019, 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

John L. Davis
16664426
850 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

19
20
21

Dated: July 1, 2019

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
5