Anderson v. Pittsburg Police Department et al

Filing 21


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 TROY ANDERSON, 4 5 6 No. C 10-5558 CW (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM v. PITTSBURG POLICE DEPT, et al., 7 Defendants. / 8 INTRODUCTION 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the 11 Martinez Detention Facility (MDF), filed the instant pro se civil 12 action which he has titled as a "Complaint/Information/Tort 13 Action." 14 from state officials involved in his arrest, parole revocation and 15 criminal prosecution, and from staff at the MDF. 16 a request for removal of his state criminal prosecution to federal 17 court. 18 forma pauperis. 19 Docket no. 15. Docket no. 19. He seeks injunctive relief and damages He also has filed He has been granted leave to proceed in A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any 20 case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 21 or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 22 § 1915A(a). 23 claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail 24 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 25 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 26 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 construed. 28 699 (9th Cir. 1988). See 28 U.S.C. In its review, the court must identify any cognizable See id. Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 1 2 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 3 4 5 DISCUSSION I. Arrest, Parole Revocation and Criminal Prosecution Claims Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages from 6 state officials involved in his arrest, parole revocation and 7 criminal prosecution. 8 complaint that Plaintiff's criminal proceedings are ongoing. 9 It appears from the allegations in the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holds that in order to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 state a claim for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional 11 conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by 12 actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence 13 invalid, a plaintiff asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must 14 prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed or declared 15 invalid. 16 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement or its 17 duration, the § 1983 lawsuit is barred, irrespective of 18 whether the plaintiff seeks monetary damages or equitable relief. 19 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005). 20 Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief or damages for alleged 21 violations pertaining to his parole revocation or his conviction 22 until those determinations have been set aside. 23 is barred under Heck must be dismissed. 24 Id. at 486-87. If success in the § 1983 lawsuit would Consequently, A complaint that Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Additionally, if Plaintiff has not yet been convicted his 25 claim for injunctive relief and damages pertaining to his 26 conviction will not be barred under Heck, but the claim cannot go 27 forward until criminal proceedings have concluded. 28 Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007). 2 See Wallace v. 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and 2 damages stemming from his arrest, parole revocation and criminal 3 proceedings are DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 II. MDF Claims Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated at MDF he was 6 involved in an altercation that resulted in his suffering a broken 7 jaw, and that he received inadequate medical attention and care for 8 that injury. 9 that resulted in the broken jaw or the surrounding circumstances, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 and also does not identify the individuals who denied him adequate 11 medical care, the exact nature of their actions, and the injury 12 Plaintiff suffered as a result. 13 Plaintiff does not identify who caused the injury The complaint is deficient under Rule 8(a) of the Federal 14 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the complaint set 15 forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 16 pleader is entitled to relief.” 17 the specific acts of the defendant that violated the plaintiff's 18 rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a). 19 Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 20 1982). 21 pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” 22 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). 23 require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be 24 sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and 25 the “grounds upon which it rests.” 26 89, 93 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted). 27 28 A complaint that fails to state See Additionally, Rule 8(e) requires that each averment of a See McHenry v. Renne, While the federal rules Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. Here, Plaintiff’s claims fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8 because Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are not sufficient to 3 1 show that he is entitled to relief or to put a defendant on notice 2 of the claims against him or her. 3 When Plaintiff's allegations are liberally construed, it 4 appears that he may be attempting to state a claim for relief under 5 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 6 plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 7 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a 9 person acting under the color of state law. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a See West v. Atkins, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 provided sufficient facts for the Court to make a determination 12 whether he has stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 13 As noted, however, Plaintiff has not Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to 14 state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 complaint in which (1) he alleges sufficient facts for the Court to 16 determine whether he states a claim for the violation of his 17 constitutional rights, and (2) clearly names and links Defendants 18 to the alleged injury or injuries for which the Defendants are 19 alleged to be responsible. 20 III. Request for Removal 21 Plaintiff may file an amended Plaintiff has filed a document titled "Notice for Stay of 22 State Court Proceedings In Support of Notice of Removal." 23 no. 19. 24 proceedings be removed to federal court. 25 properly brought in a civil rights action. 26 criminal defendant seeking to remove a criminal prosecution to 27 federal court must comply with the procedural requirements of 28 28 U.S.C. § 1446, which include the filing of a verified petition for Docket Therein, Plaintiff asks that his state criminal 4 Such a request is not Rather, a state 1 removal with the federal district court in which the criminal 2 prosecution is located, attached to which are copies of all 3 pleadings in the criminal case. 4 the removal petitioner must meet the legal requirements for 5 removal. 6 See id. at § 1446(a). Further, See Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219-20 (1975). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for removal is DENIED without 7 prejudice. 8 both the procedural and legal requirements for removing his state 9 prosecution to federal court, he may file a separate action for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 If Plaintiff has a good-faith belief that he can meet removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff's claims concerning his arrest, parole 14 revocation and criminal prosecution are DISMISSED without 15 prejudice. 16 17 18 2. Plaintiff's claims concerning his broken jaw and inadequate medical care at MDF are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff 19 may file an amended complaint in order to cure the deficiencies 20 noted above with respect to these claims. 21 court's civil rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided 22 herewith, and include in the caption both the case number of this 23 action, No. C 10-5558 CW (PR), and the heading “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 24 If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in 25 conformity with this Order, the case will be dismissed without 26 prejudice and will be closed. 27 28 3. Plaintiff shall use the Plaintiff's request for removal is DENIED without prejudice. 5 1 4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 2 Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and 3 must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 4 to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/7/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Failure 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 ANDERSON et al, Case Number: CV10-05558 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 PITTSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / 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 October 7, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached and CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM, 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. 13 14 17 Troy J. Anderson West County Detention Facility 5555 Giant Hwy #V57236 Richmond, CA 94806 18 Dated: October 7, 2011 15 16 19 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

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?