(PC) Kern v. Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 JAMES CURTIS KERN, No. 2:24-cv-02149-TLN-EFB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., [13] Defendants. [14] 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 . ECF No. 1. In addition to filing a complaint, he also filed an application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 18 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 19 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and (2). 20 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 21 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 22 Screening Standards 23 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 26 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 27 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 1 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 3 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 4 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 6 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 7 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 8 U.S. 662 , 679 (2009). 9 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 10 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 11 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557 . In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 12 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 13 678. 14 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 16 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 18 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 19 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 20 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 21 Screening Order 22 Plaintiff alleges: 23 I am not being treated fairly by the courts. The Court of Appeal is waiting on the District Attorney from the Superior Court of California County of Sacramento, 24 while I haven’t been appointed an attorney in a timely manner as we agreed. Days before my opening brief was due I called the Court of Appeal, Third 25 Appellate District, State of California and stated my brief was due in a few days and I hadn’t been appointed counsel as we agreed on form I completed and 26 returned April 13, 2024. They stated everything’s fine, but I never received another brief date or was appointed an attorney. Not being appointed counsel to 27 represent my case in appeal is very harmful to my case and puts me in a difficult situation. I feel highly discriminated against. The Superior Court of California, 28 County of Sacramento is responsible. [1] 2 ECF No. 1. At 4. 3 The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for three reasons. First, a review of the 4 docket for plaintiff’s appeal in the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District (of 5 which the court takes judicial notice) reveals that plaintiff was appointed an attorney on August 7, 6 2024 and has been granted a number of extensions of time to file his opening brief, which is 7 currently due February 20, 2025. California Courts – Appellate Case Information, 8 appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov (last checked February 16, 2025). Article III of the U.S. 9 Constitution confines federal judicial authority “cases and controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 10 2, cl. 1. “The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of 11 review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 , 459 12 n.10 (1974). Where an actual controversy does not persist throughout litigation, the case becomes 13 moot. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90-91 (2013). The docket of plaintiff’s state-court 14 appeal reveals that his claim that he was not provided counsel and thereby prejudiced in filing his 15 brief has become moot. 16 In addition, a federal court will not intervene in a pending state criminal prosecution 17 unless the plaintiff shows that he will suffer great and immediate irreparable injury. Younger v. 18 Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46-49 (1971). Younger abstention in favor of a state proceeding is 19 appropriate if the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important state interests; and 20 (3) provide an adequate opportunity to litigate the petitioner’s federal claims. Kenneally v. 21 Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331-32 (9th Cir. 1992). When a federal court abstains from hearing a 22 case under the Younger principle, it must dismiss the pending action without prejudice. Beltran v. 23 California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 Younger abstention is appropriate here. Plaintiff’s complaint makes plain that his criminal 25 case is ongoing, in its direct appeal stage. The state has an important interest in the adjudication 26 of criminal cases. Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 556 (1998). To the extent the conduct 27 plaintiff complains of states a cognizable claim, he can present that claim to the state courts in his 28 direct appeals. ] Lastly, plaintiff sues only defendants who are immune from suit under the Eleventh 2 || Amendment. The Sacramento County Superior Court and the Third District Court of Appeal are 3 | arms of the state, and thus the Eleventh Amendment shields them from suit under § 1983. Munoz 4 | v. Super. Ct., 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024). 5 For these reasons, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 6 || which relief could be granted. Given the deficiencies, the court finds that leave to amend in this 7 || action would be futile. See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (leave to 8 | amend is not required if it is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 9 || cured by amendment”) (internal citations omitted). 10 Conclusion 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 13 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 14 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 15 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 16 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend for 17 | failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 21 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 22 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 23 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 24 | F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 || Dated: February 20, 2025 2 □□ lS? , 26 _ Slate PBEM EDMUND F. BRENNAN 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE