United States District Court, N.D. California
JOHN L. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
GREG SUHR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND RE: DKT. NO. 31
D&ATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This action was stayed pending the
outcome of plaintiff's criminal proceeding. Plaintiff has
filed an amended motion to lift the stay and indicates that
he pled no contest in his domestic violence case. The stay is
lifted and the Court will review the amended and second
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A
complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the
“plausible on its face” standard of
Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide
the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color
of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
alleges that he was the victim of a false arrest due to a
conspiracy of local and federal law enforcement. He seeks
money damages. In order to recover damages for an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for
damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence
that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under
§ 1983. Id. at 487.
A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983
for violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition
against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is
that the arrest was without probable cause or other
justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,
555-558 (1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779
F.3d 1010, 1014, n.1. (9th Cir. 2015) (absence of probable
cause is essential element of § 1983 false arrest
claim); see, e.g., Fortson v. Los Angles City Atty's
Office, 852 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (existence
of probable cause is complete defense to § 1983 claim
alleging false arrest). A claim of bad faith in making an
arrest may also be a cause of action under § 1983 as an
illegal and unconstitutional arrest. See Bretz v.
Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Where officers have no lawful basis for stopping an
individual, they have no lawful basis for pursuing an arrest
for resisting, impeding, or obstructing a peace officer when
that individual does not accede to the investigatory stop.
Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010, 1019
(9th Cir. 2015).
states that various San Francisco Police Officers and federal
officials conspired to have him arrested and they were trying
to kill him. However, plaintiff pled no contest to some of
the criminal charges therefore his request to obtain damages
is barred by Heck, unless the conviction is later
reversed or overturned. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief
regarding a conspiracy to investigate and arrest him that
would not be barred by Heck, he has failed to state
a claim for relief. Simply stating that the local and federal
officials were conspiring against him is insufficient. He
must identify specific defendants and describe how they
violated his constitutional rights. He will be provided one
last opportunity to amend.
1. The motion to lift the stay (Docket No. 31) is
GRANTED. The stay is LIFTED
and this case is REOPENED.
2. The amended and second amended complaints are
DISMISSED with leave to amend. The third
amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight
(28) days of the date this order is filed and must
include the caption and civil case number used in this order
and the words THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.
Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original
complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate ...