United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION (ECF NO. 22)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ronnie Earl Howell (“Plaintiff”), a former
pretrial detainee now housed at Atascadero State Hospital, is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2019, the
Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and
granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff's
second amended complaint, filed on June 19, 2019, is
currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 22.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
Allegations in Second Amended Complaint
is currently housed at Atascadero State Hospital, but
initiated this action while he was detained in the Fresno
County Jail. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1)
John Barker & Associates, Appointed Attorneys; (2) Fresno
County Public Defender's Officer; (3) Mark Mekhitarian,
Court Appointed Attorney; and (4) ADO, Appointed Counsel.
first claim, Plaintiff asserts that his liberty is being
restrained in violation of his due process rights. He alleges
In an information filed on Appril on are about 3rd
[17 April 2018 Prelim HRG], “2018.” With
no-express waive from ten day prelim HRG waiver [4-16-2018],
in fact on 44-09-2018 Petitioner pre-perlim hearing,
Petitioner stated for the record no com't of speedy trial
& no com't of any type by appointted public defender
office without my approval [See audio of HRG;] The Judge says
ten day's for prelim 17thfollowing day &
com't following day making it on 17the of April. On or
about 5-02-18 superior arragn oral Marsden MTN made &
denids; their after & [illegible sentence] The Court
appointted public defenders office & Judge suspends
criminal proceeds; I invoke P.C. 1368 proceeds 5th
D.C.A…..The People v. Howell, Involves: Hon's
“Ellison” & Jonathan Skiles, [reverse in part
“strick” stayed] .. these re submerges including
Hon. Jon Kapetan to preside agin over [inclueding] but
unchallenged, by the appointted. In fact would not surpress
search warrants signed by not a previous search by Kent
Hamline previous case, & recent one. My charges CT
'1' P.C. 487 subd. (A)), a felony; CT 2 P.C.
459/460(b), & a felony, CT ‘3' P.C. 459/460(b)
a felony., with prior alleged too had been imprison on eight
separate occasions for felony conviction. It shoud be noted;
that each prior our inbeded on each appeal's throught, ex
post facto. Judicial notice requested.
(ECF No. 22 at 3-4) (unedited text).
second claim, Plaintiff asserts a due process violation and
alleges as follows:
The trial court found Ronnie Howell incompetent to state
trial and ordered him committed to the Department of State
Hospitals. Despite confirming that Mr. Howell was willing to
voluntarily take prescribed medications and absent a penal
code sec 1370 hearing on involuntary medication, the trial
court authorized the involuntary administration of
antipsychotic medication to Mr. Howell in its commitment
order. Because the Court's involuntary medication order
was not supported substantial evidence and violated Mr.
Howell's due process rights-it must be reversed. [¶]
The Petitioner request the examiner to review ...