Brisette v. California Supreme Court et al
Filing
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/24/15. Amended complaint must be filed no later than 1/29/16. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
PHILLIP BRISETTE,
7
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
9
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-05578-PJH
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
13
14
1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION
15
16
17
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
21
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
22
relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
23
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement
25
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not
26
necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim
27
is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
28
(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed
1
factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]
2
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
3
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
4
raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
5
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state
6
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme
7
Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal
8
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
9
allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
12
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
13
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
14
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
15
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16 II.
LEGAL CLAIMS
17
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling a California State Court to conduct a hearing
18
19
regarding his state habeas petition for a prison disciplinary finding.
The federal mandamus statute provides: "The district courts shall have original
20
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
21
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28
22
U.S.C. § 1361.
23
However, this court has no authority to take the actions requested by plaintiff by
24
way of a writ of mandamus. Federal courts are without power to issue mandamus to
25
direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their
26
duties. A petition for mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from
27
some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d
28
1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1082 (1991); see also In re Campbell,
2
1
264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would
2
order state trial court to give plaintiff access to certain trial transcripts which he sought in
3
preparation for filing state post-conviction petition; federal court may not, as a general
4
rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court
5
litigation).
Plaintiff brought habeas petitions in the state superior court, court of appeal, and
6
7
supreme court. No hearings were scheduled in any of those cases and all petitions were
8
denied. Plaintiff seeks to have the denials vacated and a hearing held in state court.
9
Pursuant to the authority above this court cannot compel a state court to have a hearing.
10
The complaint will be dismissed but plaintiff will be provided one opportunity to amend.1
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CONCLUSION
12
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the
13
standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than January
14
29, 2016, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the
15
words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint
16
completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
17
18
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may
not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
19
20
21
22
23
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
24
25
26
1
27
28
Depending on the circumstances of the disciplinary hearing and the punishment, plaintiff
may be able to challenge the finding in a habeas petition. Plaintiff would need to file the
petition in the district where he is confined, which at this time is the Eastern District of
California.
3
1
2
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Decem
mber 24, 20
015
3
4
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
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
2
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
3
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
4
5
PH
HILLIP BRI
ISETTE,
Case No. 1
15-cv-05578
8-PJH
Plaintiff,
6
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
7
8
CALIFORNIA SUPREM COURT, et al.,
A
ME
Defendants
s.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
That on December 24, 2015, I SERVED a t
n
S
true and corr copy(ies of the atta
rect
s)
ached, by
pla
acing said co
opy(ies) in a postage paid envelope a
d
addressed to the person(s hereinafte listed, by
s)
er
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.
16
17
18
Phi
illip Brisette ID: P44080
e
CS Solano 8SP
-250 Low
P.O Box 4000
O.
0
Va
acaville, CA 95696-4000
0
19
20
21
ated: Decemb 24, 2015
ber
5
Da
22
23
Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict
24
25
26
27
By
y:_________
___________
_______
Je Ballard, Deputy Cler to the
ean
rk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
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?