United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a former juvenile detained in the California Youth Authority,
is proceeding pro se. On January 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a
seven page handwritten document accompanied by 349 pages of
exhibits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff requested leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff consented
to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted.
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. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims
which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”);
Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“requires only ‘a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for
failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than
“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific
facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations
and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a
complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true
the allegations of the complaint in question,
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other
grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
demands from the State of California monetary compensation
for alleged kidnapping and false imprisonment, and allegedly
charging him for a crime he claims he did not commit. (ECF
No. 1 at 5.) The exhibits provided suggest that plaintiff was
committed to the California Youth Authority
(“CYA”) following proceedings held in 1998 in the
juvenile division of the San Joaquin County Superior Court,
Case No. 54180 or J54180. (ECF Nos. 1-2 at 17; 1-3 at 52.)
Plaintiff provided copies of an order issued by the California
Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District in Case No.
C031187. (ECF Nos. 1-2 at 17; 1-3 at 52.) The state appellate
court noted that plaintiff's juvenile delinquency
proceeding involved three separate petitions. (ECF No. 1-2 at
17.) On appeal, plaintiff argued that the juvenile court
erred by failing to declare one violation a misdemeanor, and
erred in committing plaintiff to CYA. (ECF No. 1-2 at 18.) On
January 26, 2000, the state appellate court upheld the
juvenile court's findings. (ECF No. 1-2 at 18.)
also provided a copy of the September 15, 2016 order from the
California appellate court, denying, without comment, his
petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1-3 at 83.)
does not provide a copy of a denial from the California
Supreme Court, either from an appeal from, or petition for
review of, the 2000 order by the state appellate court, or
from a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the
California Supreme Court. Plaintiff provided multiple copies of
documents related to his efforts to file a petition for writ
of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held
“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state
prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his
confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even
though such a claim may come within the literal terms of
§ 1983.” Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994).
Thus, a plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action to
recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render [his] conviction or sentence
invalid” when his sentence and conviction have not
previously been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or
called into question upon issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
by a federal court. Id. at 486-87. The Supreme ...