Opinion
3:19-cv-00337-MMD-CBC
09-27-2019
LAMARR ROWELL, Plaintiff, v. JAMES E. DZURENDA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lamarr Rowell's ("Rowell"), application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), his pro se civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1), his motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3), his motion for pro bono counsel (ECF No. 4), and his amended emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5). For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Rowell's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 1) be granted, that his complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice, and without leave to amend, and that the motion for temporary restraining order, motion for appointment of counsel, and amended emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) be denied as moot, in light of this report and recommendation. I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") if the person "submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable pay such fees or give security therefore. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed IFP, not just prisoner actions).
The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: "Any person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant's income, assets, expenses, and liabilities." LSR 1-1.
"[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty." U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not "be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute." Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Rowell cannot pay the filing fee; therefore, the Court recommends that the application be granted.
II. SCREENING STANDARD
Prior to ordering service on any defendant, the Court is required to screen an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain circumstances. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126 (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2015).
"[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - (A) the allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal - (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (ii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii).
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915€(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. As such, when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) ("The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim."). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
The Court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints are "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]" Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
A complaint must contain more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actions," it must contain factual allegations sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).
III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
In his complaint, Rowell sues Defendants Director of Nevada Department of Corrections James E. Dzurenda and Director of Nevada Department of Parole and Probation John/Jane Doe under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See ECF No. 1-1.) Rowell alleges the following: On April 30, 2008, Rowell was placed in the custody of Defendant Dzurenda for 11 years for his "status of being a habitual criminal," and on August 17, 2018, Rowell was placed under the supervision of John/Jane Doe for his "status of being a habitual criminal." (Id. at 2.) Rowell states that the Nevada Supreme Court has consistently held "habitual criminality is not a crime but a status and does not charge a criminal offense," and that a person "cannot be punished for status." (Id., citations omitted.) Rowell argues that the Defendants lacked the statutory and constitutional authority to accept custody of Rowell because the courts never had power to issue an order to deprive him of his liberty for a non-crime. (Id.) Based on these allegations, Rowell asserts violations of his due process and equal protection rights and seeks discharge from parole supervision and monetary damages. (Id. at 2-3.)
42 U.S.C. § 1983 aims "to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights." Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)). The statute "provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights[,]" Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999), and is "merely . . . the procedural device for enforcing substantive provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes." Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Claims under § 1983 require the plaintiff to allege (1) the violation of a federally-protected right by (2) a person or official who acts under the color of state law. Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, § 1983 is not a backdoor through which a federal court may overturn a state court conviction or award relief related to the fact or duration of a sentence. Section 1983 and "the federal habeas corpus statute . . . both provide access to the federal courts 'for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials, . . . [but] they different in their scope and operation.'" Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 854 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 48 (1994)). Federal courts must take care to prevent prisoners from relying on § 1983 to subvert the differing procedural requirements of habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 695 (9th Cir. 2008). When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, or seeks damages for purported deficiencies in his state court criminal case, which effected a conviction or lengthier sentence, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S. at 481; Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Simpson, 528 F.3d at 692-93. Stated differently, where "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence," then "the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated." Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
While Rowell states that this action does not challenge or imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction or sentence (See ECF No. 1-1 at 2), it is apparent that Rowell is explicitly challenging the constitutionality of his state court criminal conviction. Consequently, he must demonstrate that his conviction has been overturned to proceed in an action under § 1983. As he has not done so, his sole relief is a habeas corpus action. The Court, therefore, recommends that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
Because the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend, the Court recommends that Rowell's other pending motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) be denied as moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated above, the Court recommends that Rowell's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted, Rowell's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend, and the motion for temporary restraining order, motion for pro bono counsel, and amended emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) be denied as moot, in light of this report and recommendation. The parties are advised:
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" and should be accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court.
2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.
V. RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Rowell's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE Rowell's complaint (ECF No. 1-1);
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Rowell's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Rowell's motion for temporary restraining order, motion for pro bono counsel, and amended emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) be DENIED as moot, in light of this report and recommendation. DATED: 9/27/2019.
/s/ _________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE