Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heyer v. Krueger

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 21, 2015

RICHARD D. HEYER, Plaintiff,
ANGELA KRUEGER, et al., Defendants.


DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Richard D. Heyer ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 5, 2013, and the action was transferred to this Court on August 13, 2013.[1]

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2013. Pursuant to Court order, he filed his Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2014. He names Tulare County Public Defender Angela Krueger and California State Prison-Sacramento Litigation Coordinator Linda Young as Defendants.


The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, " that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id . (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead , 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles , 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton , 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones , 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.


Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California.

By way of background, Plaintiff states that he first met Inmate McNutt in 2009, when inmates were "compacted" for bed space at R. J. Donovan prison. Plaintiff contends that Inmate McNutt is a self-proclaimed "Neo-Nazi" who enforces violence against inmates with documented sex-related charges in their arrest record. In August 2009, Plaintiff heard McNutt brag about having a friend, a Tulare County Deputy Public Defender, who could get an inmate's records at any time (Defendant Krueger). Less than twenty-four hours after meeting, McNutt demanded Plaintiff's chrono and then attacked Plaintiff over old sex-related charges (prostitution and sexual battery). Plaintiff was hospitalized for ten days with broken facial bones.

When he returned to prison, Plaintiff asked for a "keep away" chrono against Inmate McNutt. Plaintiff didn't see him again until 2013, when Plaintiff was transferred to Lancaster. Plaintiff filed an appeal related to his safety concerns. Inmate McNutt was "furious" that Plaintiff filed a complaint against him.

Plaintiff was subsequently moved to Sacramento. He alleges that Inmate McNutt asked Defendant Krueger to get Plaintiff's confidential file ASAP. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Krueger "rubber-stamped" a records subpoena on behalf of Inmate McNutt and sent it to Defendant Young, Sacramento's Litigation Coordinator, on May 15, 2013. The subpoena was issued in People v. McNutt, Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCF035393-94. Plaintiff contends, however, that Inmate McNutt did not have any ongoing court proceedings and that Defendant Krueger falsified the subpoena.[2]

On June 7, 2013, 23 days after the subpoena was faxed, Defendant Young served the subpoena on Plaintiff. This was one day after the June 6, 2013, hearing date listed on the subpoena. As a result, Plaintiff contends that he was not given an opportunity to appear in court.

Also on June 7, 2013, Plaintiff wrote Defendant Krueger an urgent letter questioning her purpose. He submitted an emergency appeal on June 9, 2013, and attempted to block the subpoena and advise officials that Defendant Young precluded Plaintiff from challenging the subpoena at the court hearing. On June 13, 2013, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.