Brown v. Mueller
| Decision Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12-cv-02321 KJM DAD P,2:12-cv-02321 KJM DAD P |
| Parties | DEXTER BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. In his complaint plaintiff presents claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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 begranted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).
A claim 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 where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
In his complaint, filed on September 10, 2012, plaintiff names two defendants: Robert Mueller, III, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.), and Herbert Brown, the special agent in charge of the Sacramento Office of the F.B.I.
In his complaint plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff has "advised the defendants" about prison officials' attempts to murder plaintiff; however, defendants failed to conduct an investigation "even as plaintiff sent sworn criminal complaints, accompanied by approximately 15 prison grievances, all written/submitted in the last approximate 7 months[.]" (Doc. No. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Mueller's failure to investigate the murder attempt on plaintiff violates plaintiff's right to equal protection because the F.B.I. would have conducted the requested investigation if he was not a convicted felon. (Id. at 7.) As to defendant Brown, plaintiff claims that he subjected plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment "due to the derilection [sic] of duty and apathy demonstrated toward plaintiff's life and safety by the defendants." (Id.) In terms of relief, plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and an injunction compelling defendants "to conduct a thorough investigation[.]" (Id. at 3.)
On October 10, 2012, plaintiff filed an unsigned amended complaint naming defendant Mueller as the sole defendant. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) Therein, plaintiff repeated his allegation that "State of California prison officials had attempted to murder plaintiff on several occasions (amongst other crimes and civil rights violations)" and that the named defendants had refused to investigate his claims in this regard. (Id. at 3-4.) To the amended complaint plaintiff attached approximately one hundred pages of documents, including his own letter directed to "print and television media agents," in support of his contention that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has engaged in unlawful conduct and the named defendants have refused to investigate. (See Doc. No. 10.)
On October 18, 2012, plaintiff filed what appears to be intended as a second amended complaint in which he presents only his Bivens claim, again naming Mueller andBrown as defendants. Although incomplete, the second amended complaint repeated the allegations noted above and included additional allegations concerning plaintiff's efforts to be placed in federal custody by his making of a false threat against the President of the United States, interference with his mail, lack of access to the law library, inadequate medical care, conspiracy among prison and medical staff, and improper processing of his complaints concerning an attempted murder. (Doc. No. 11 at 1-8.) Lastly, in that pleading plaintiff indicates that he seeks the following injunctive relief: (1) a court order directing to the Solano County Sheriff to pick-up his evidence and documents relevant to this action; (2) an order compelling the Warden of the California Medical Facility and his subordinates to forward all of plaintiff's appeals alleging attempted murder to the CDCR Internal Affairs Division; (3) an order directing the warden to ensure that plaintiff's mail is properly processed; (4) an order compelling the District Attorney or Sheriff of Solano County to bring criminal charges against either plaintiff or CDCR officials; and (5) declaratory relief. (Doc. No. 11 at 18-19.)
Finally, on June 10, 2013, plaintiff filed with the court a pleading mislabeled as a "First Amended Complaint."1 In that pleading, plaintiff for the most part repeated the many allegations referred to above and again attached over 100 pages of various and random documents in support of his claims.
Plaintiffs who seek to allege claims for redress of the deprivation of their constitutional rights by federal officers may bring an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), if the claim is alleged against a federal employee in his or her individual capacity. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1994); Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 1996). Bivens actions are identical to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 except for the replacement of state actor under §1983 by federal actor under Bivens. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011) () (internal quotation marks omitted); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).
In Bivens the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could seek to recover monetary damages for injury sustained when federal officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 403 U.S. at 392-94, 397. The Court found that the right to such redress arose directly under the Fourth Amendment. Id. The Bivens remedy is not restricted to claims arising under the Fourth Amendment. See Davis v. Passman 442 U.S. 228, 248-49 (1979) (); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341-42 (9th Cir. 1986) ().
Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and should be dismissed. Plaintiff's underlying allegations that prison officials have attempted to murder him are too far-fetched to be believed. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Warren v. Bush, Case No. 2:08-cv-00376-RLH-LRL, 2008 WL 3876885, *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2008) ().
In addition, having considered plaintiff's original complaint as well as his two subsequent amended complaints, the undersigned must conclude that plaintiff has not stated, and cannot state, a claim upon which relief may be granted. This action is based on plaintiff's apparent belief that the F.B.I. has a duty to investigate his complaints that California prisonofficials have on numerous occasions attempted to murder plaintiff and have engaged in other acts of misconduct against him. There is no constitutional right to have F.B.I. officials to conduct an investigation of every complaint brought to the attention of that agency. For instance, in Terrell v. Attorney General State of California State of California, No....
To continue reading
Request your trial