United States District Court, N.D. California
DAVID L. COOK, Plaintiff,
CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an
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." "Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement 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) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim 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 recently 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 two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that he was improperly arrested and detained on
of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for
violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against
unreasonable search and seizure if the complaint alleges 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). And a claim of
unlawful detention/imprisonment is cognizable under §
1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
guarantee of due process if the arrest was without probable
cause or other justification and the defendant knew or should
have known that plaintiff was entitled to release. See
Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142- 145 (1979);
Lee v. County of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 684-85
(9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff stated due process claim where
police allegedly arrested plaintiff's son without
probable cause, detained him without verifying that he was
the person for whom police had an arrest warrant, despite his
obvious mental incapacity, and detained him for one day
before extradition hearing, which led to his incarceration in
another state for two years). But cf. Gant v. County of
Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 619, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2014)
(because plaintiff did not inform defendants of his mistaken
identity and because he received a prompt hearing, his due
process claim based on unlawful post-arrest detention
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.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the Court
held that the “Heck rule for deferred accrual
is called into play only when there exists ‘a
conviction or sentence that has not been . . .
invalidated,' that is to say, an ‘outstanding
criminal judgment.'” Id. at 391-93
(quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The
Heck rule delays accrual only if there is an
existing conviction on the date the statute of limitations
begins to run, which in the case of wrongful arrest or
wrongful imprisonment claims is when the plaintiff's
confinement is no longer without legal process, but rather
becomes a confinement pursuant to legal process - that is,
for example, when he or she is bound over by a magistrate or
arraigned on charges. Id. at 389-90. The Court
stated that the contention that “an action which would
impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be
brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside”
goes “well beyond Heck” and rejected it.
Id. at 393 (italics in original). Although the Court
was only considering when the statute of limitations began
running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the
discussion quoted suggests that Heck does not apply
if there is no extant conviction - for instance, if plaintiff
has only been arrested or charged.
plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he or
she is convicted, or files any other claim related to rulings
that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated criminal
trial, it is within the power of the district court, and
accords with common practice, to stay the civil action until
the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is
ended. Id. at 393-94. If the plaintiff is then
convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that
conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the
case may proceed. Id. at 394.
states that he was improperly arrested and taken to jail on
multiple occasions. It appears that he was released from
custody after a few days. Plaintiff is currently in custody.
It is not clear if he is in custody related to these arrests.
It is also not clear the current status of the arrests.
Plaintiff states that he was stopped and searched due to the
mistaken belief by defendants that he was on probation.
Plaintiff states that there have been no probation violation
proceedings. Plaintiff has not indicated if there were new
charges during the arrests and the status of those charges.
The complaint was previously dismissed with leave to ...