Anderson v. Pittsburg Police Department et al

Filing 21

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

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