Hernandez v. Holt

• Decision Date: 24 August 2020
• 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

ERNIE HERNANDEZ, III, Plaintiff, v. A. HOLT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01127-AWI-SAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

August 24, 2020

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

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. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 13, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)

I.SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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.

II.ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff brings this action against Officer A. Holt, Corporal J. Dominguez, an unidentified Sergeant ("Doe"), and District Attorney Leah Alvarez in their official and individual capacities alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He is seeking monetary damages.

Plaintiff alleges that on April 10, 2019, Defendants Holt and Dominguez manufactured evidence which caused him to be held in custody for 180 days until he was acquitted. (Compl. 3,¹ ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff contends that the officers wrote fraudulent police reports, provided false statements in their reports, and conspired with Defendant Doe who reviewed their police reports, to charge him with violations of California Penal Code sections 466 and 496(d) andCalifornia Vehicle Code sections 10851(a) and 2800.4. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that exculpatory evidence contained within body cam footage was withheld from their reports. (Id.) The body cam footage included the officers doubt which was not included in the reports. (Id.) Plaintiff contends this deprived him of his right to due process and led to a criminal complaint and wrongful incarceration. (Id.)

Defendants Holt and Dominguez travelled to Strathmore, another city which is five to seven minutes away and under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department, to prosecute Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) Defendants Holt and Dominguez drove their individual department vehicles and did not know the individual who was alleged to be Plaintiff. (Id.) They provided false police reports by writing that they could positively identify Plaintiff when their body cam clearly revealed their doubt which was "clipped" in trial to cover up the doubt. (Id.) Due to the false allegations in the reports, Plaintiff believed he would face an additional 20 years and spent 180 days in jail. (Id.) Defendant Alvarez knowingly showed tampered evidence, the "clipped" body cam video, to the jury in prosecuting Plaintiff for extortion. (Id.)

Defendants Holt, Dominguez, and Doe had more than a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. (Id. at 5.) The Porterville Police Department is under scrutiny for their pattern of misconduct. (Id.) Officers Holt and Dominguez provided perjured testimony at trial and encouraged Defendant Alvarez to prosecute Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff was badgered through social media outlets such as Facebook. (Id.)

Around April 10, 2019, the Porterville Police Department utilized several newspaper publications and media platforms along with the Tulare County Sheriff's Office and department personal to slander Plaintiff such that the fraudulent, fabricated crimes and outstanding warrants spread throughout Tulare County and the surrounding counties. (Id. at 8.) The publications ranged from Facebook to the Visalia Times Delta, Porterville Recorder, Instagram, etc. (Id.)

During Plaintiff's jury trial, from October 1st through 14th, 2019, Defendant Alvarez attempted to incarcerate Plaintiff for longer periods of time. She 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 sevenyears of incarceration. (Id. at 9.)

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against any named defendant. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that apply to his claims and shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

III.DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's complaint is largely composed of conclusory allegations of misconduct and threadbare recitals of elements of the causes of action that 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.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (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.

Here, it appears that 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. Although Plaintiff also contrarily alleges that the video containing the "clipped" footage which showed that the officers were not one hundred percent certain was shown at trial. Additionally, it would also appear from the allegations in the complaint that Plaintiff was convicted on some of the charges brought against him. Notably, Plaintiff alleges 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

A. Section 1983

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. 662, 677 (2009). To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; 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.

B. Official Capacity Claims

Plaintiff brings this action against the defendants in their official capacity seeking monetary damages. "The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities." Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims for prospective injunctive relief against an officer of the state who acts in his official capacity. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2007); Cerrato v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff cannot receive monetary damages against any defendant for actions taken in their official capacity.

Further, a suit brought against government officials in their official capacity is generally equivalent to a suit against the government itself. McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, officials may be held liable where a "'policy or custom' . . . played a part in the violation of federal law." McRorie, 795 F.2d at 783 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). The official may be liable where the act or failure to respond reflects a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action when various...