Hernandez v. Holt
| Decision Date | 03 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-01127-AWI-SAB |
| Parties | ERNIE HERNANDEZ, III, Plaintiff, v. A. HOLT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM AND DISMISSING ACTION
Ernie Hernandez, III ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on August 13, 2020 and the matter was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
A screening order was filed on August 24, 2020, finding that Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim and granting leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on October 9, 2020. (ECF No. 11.) The order granting the extension of time was re-served at Plaintiff's new address on October 14, 2020, and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint on or before November 13, 2020. (ECF No. 12.) On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time that was denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed an unsigned motion for an extension of time that was stricken from the record. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.) In the order striking the motion, Plaintiff was ordered to file his amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 16.) On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff was granted an extension of thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.) On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff's request for an extension of time was granted one final time and Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the August 24, 2020 screening order. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed February 26, 2021. (ECF No. 21.)
The 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 on which relief may be granted," or that "seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A 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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
/ / / Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff brings this action against Officer A. Holt, Corporal J. Dominguez, Sgt. Ward, and District Attorney Leah Alvarez. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging cruel and unusual punishment and state claims for defamation of character, loss of familial ties, wrongful incarceration, negligence, false arrest, discrimination, and an intentional tort. He is seeking monetary damages.
Although Plaintiff was previously advised that his conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a cognizable claim in this action and provided with the legal standards that apply to his claims, Plaintiff's first amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations of misconduct devoid of factual allegations to state a claim in this matter. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to coerce him to take an extreme plea deal to discourage Plaintiff from going to trial. He alleges that they used exclusion of exculpatory material evidence, fabrication of evidence and perjured testimony to yield false information and with malice coerce Plaintiff into incarceration for a prolonged period of time. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants ceaselessly advocated for a wrongful conviction and through fraud deprived Plaintiff of his life and liberty. (Compl. 5,1 ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants exposed him to cruel and unusual punishment by pursuing an unfounded prosecution when they knew or should have known that Plaintiff was innocent, withheld exculpatory evidence that included witness statements, body cam footage, and testimony of favorable testimony (that arresting officers Holt and Dominguez expressed doubt and went as far as denying that Plaintiff was the person of interest) but to secure an arrest the defendants conspired to falsely arrest and charge Plaintiff with a number of crimes that he was acquitted of following a jury trial. (Id. at 6.)
In his cause of action for an intentional tort, Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2019, in Tulare County, Defendants conspired with deception and fraud to fabricate evidence, withhold exculpatory evidence, and secure a false conviction against Plaintiff. Through social media, Defendants attempted to defame Plaintiff by engaging in a vigorous campaign against Plaintiff thought Facebook, snap chat, newspaper articles, and caused injury to Plaintiff by falsely accusing and publishing negative propaganda which was proven false, by withholding evidence and fabricating police reports to pursue an arrest and conviction. (Id. at 7.)
As Plaintiff was advised in the prior screening order his conclusory allegations of misconduct and threadbare recitals of elements of the causes of action are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff's amended complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that would state a cognizable claim in this action.
Based on the original complaint, the basis of Plaintiff's complaint is that the officers who arrested him expressed some doubt about the crime for which he was being arrested and that discussion was "clipped" from the body cam footage. However Plaintiff contrarily alleged that the video containing the "clipped" footage which showed that the officers were not one hundred percent certain was shown at trial. Further, as the Court found in the prior screening order, thejury convicted Plaintiff on some of the charges brought against him. (Screening Order Granting Pl. Leave to File Am. Compl., ECF No. 7.)
Notably, Plaintiff alleged that due to the allegations in the report he believed he would be incarcerated for an additional twenty years. (Compl. at 4.) The prosecutor presented the "clipped" video footage which showed that Defendants Holt and Dominguez were not 100 percent certain that it was Plaintiff who had committed the crimes in the hope that he would be given twenty seven years of incarceration. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff is currently in custody after the jury returned a guilty verdict on some of the charges during the trial.2
(Id. at 4.)
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, and therefore, each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Id.; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to contain any factual allegations to link any named defendant to an act or failure to act that would violate Plaintiff's federal rights. For this reason, and the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim in this action.
Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated by being prosecuted in the underlying state court criminal action. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects convicted prisoners. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Graham v. Connor...
To continue reading
Request your trial