United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared in this action. Plaintiff's complaint is before the court for screening.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
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, malicious, " or 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).
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff's claims arise out of events that occurred in February and March 2014, when he was held at Kings County Jail (KCJ) and, subsequently, Wasco State Prison. Defendant Pedriero is the "commander" at KCJ; Defendants Cisneros and Hernandez are deputies there. Defendants Feliciano and Schultz are appeals coordinators at Wasco and Breen is a Counselor at Wasco. Additional defendants include "booking staff" on 2/7/14 at KCJ, the Kings County Superior Court Clerk on February 3, 2014, and TSA Zwetsloot, the official court reporter in Kings County.
On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff's case in Kings County Court was dismissed "due to an improper police investigation." Because of a federal parole detainer, Plaintiff was not released immediately from KCJ, but instead awaited the arrival of United States Marshalls to take him to a federal facility. Instead, on February 7, 2014, he was told he was being taken to Wasco State Prison. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendant Cisneros told him, "because of your [criminal] case." Plaintiff explained that he had "beaten his case" and that he was waiting for the Marshalls to come pick him up. Cisneros said, "You'll be doing a layover then."
R&R staff at Wasco, however, did not apparently realize that Plaintiff was only to be at Wasco temporarily. After Plaintiff "told them all necessary information several times, " he was eventually told he "was a mistaken identity" and that he would be picked up the next Monday, February 10, by either Kings County staff or the Marshalls. In the meantime, he was required to get a new prison ID and commitment number.
On February 10, however, no one came. On February 11, Plaintiff filed an internal appeal, which was rejected at all levels. The first-level denial, signed by Defendants Feliciano and Shultz, stated that Plaintiff had not filed supporting documentation and concluded, "If you are here its [sic] court ordered." (ECF No.1, at 169).
Plaintiff informed Counselor Breen several times between February 7 and February 20 that he was at Wasco for no reason; Breen told him only that "the Marshalls] know you're here, " but apparently took no action to ensure this was true. Plaintiff wrote to his own counselor, T. Mosely (not a defendant), and received no response.
Plaintiff's family, meanwhile, apparently alerted correctional staff to Plaintiff's situation, and on February 20, 2014 KCJ officials came to pick him up. Plaintiff attempted to grieve the issue at KCJ but the substance of his appeal was not addressed because he was apparently transferred to a federal facility on February 25, 2014.
Subsequent grievances Plaintiff filed in an attempt to retrieve copies of the administrative appeals he had submitted at Wasco indicate that his release date from federal detention was April 19, 2014.
Although Plaintiff does not state specifically the grounds on which he seeks relief, the facts he alleges could potentially give rise to a state claim for false imprisonment, a § 1983 claim for over-detention in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or a Fourteenth Amendment violation for delay in parole proceedings. The court declines to address Plaintiff's potential state claim because he has not alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's potential federal claims ...