Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:9

1 2

JS-6

3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON D. STOWERS, Case No. EDCV 21-2003-ODW (PVC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO

14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMEND

JUDICIAL SYSTEM,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Alton D. Stowers, a California state pretrial detainee, constructively filed a 19 pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 22, 2021.1 20 (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the full filing fee or submit a request to 21 proceed in forma pauperis with the Complaint, and despite being notified of the omission 22 by the Court Clerk, to date has not remedied the error. (See Dkt. No. 2). In these 23 circumstances, the Court would typically order Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an IFP 24 application within thirty days, barring which the action would be summarily dismissed. 25 However, because the Complaint is utterly frivolous and Plaintiff is not entitled to relief

26 1 The “mailbox rule” announced by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to section 1983 cases. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 27 Cir. 2009). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, pro se prisoner legal filings are deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers the document to prison officials for forwarding to the court 28 clerk. Id. Plaintiff signed the Complaint on November 22, 20221, which the Court adopts as the Motion’s constructive filing date. (Complaint at 3). Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:10

1 under any circumstances, even if Plaintiff did move to proceed IFP, the application would 2 be denied. As such, it is futile to delay the dismissal of this action any longer. 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, this action is immediately DISMISSED 4 without leave to amend. 5 6 A. Screening Authorization And Standard 7 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “‘[a] trial court may act on its own 9 initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim 10 . . . .’” Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Wong 11 v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981)). Generally, “the district court must give notice 12 of its sua sponte intention to dismiss and provide the plaintiff with ‘an opportunity to at 13 least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion.’” Seismic Reservoir 14 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Wong, 642 F.2d at 362 15 and affirming trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of counterclaim on the ground that the 16 court lacked authority to grant relief requested by plaintiff)). However, the Ninth Circuit 17 has upheld even sua sponte dismissals of claims or actions “without notice where the 18 claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 19 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. 20 Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (adopting the Ninth Circuit’s position in Omar and noting that a 21 sua sponte dismissal in the appropriate context “is practical and fully consistent with 22 plaintiff’s rights and the efficient use of judicial resources”). Indeed, trial courts may 23 even dismiss claims sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend. See Ricotta 24 v. State of Cal., 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 979 (S.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d sub nom. Ricotta v. State of 25 Calif., 173 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing sua sponte RICO claim brought by 26 California resident proceeding pro se where “under no circumstances can Plaintiff state a 27 RICO claim based on the alleged acts of the Defendants”). “Sua sponte dismissal may be 28 made before process is served on defendants.” Herrejon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,

2 Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:11

1 980 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (dismissing California resident pro se claims 2 sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) and entering judgment in favor of defendants prior to 3 service of complaint where complaint failed to allege viable claims). 4 5 When a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court must construe the 6 pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 7 Angeles Police Dep’t., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In giving liberal interpretation 8 to a pro se complaint, the court may not, however, supply essential elements of a claim 9 that were not initially pled. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 10 (9th Cir. 1982). A court must give a pro se litigant leave to amend the complaint unless it 11 is “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 12 amendment.” Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623 (citation and internal quotation omitted). 13 14 B. Allegations Of The Complaint 15 16 In his three-page Complaint, Plaintiff brings a facial challenge to the 17 constitutionality of California’s Three Strikes Law in a putative class action against the 18 “State of California Judicial System.” (Complaint at 1). Plaintiff summarily contends, 19 without further factual context or legal support, that “[n]o judge or court should be able to 20 tell an individual how many times they can break a given law. As there are already in 21 place low, middle and high terms on sentencing, each crime should have its own term not 22 being ‘enhanced’ or ‘3 Strike enhanced.’” (Id. at 2). As such, Plaintiff maintains that 23 California’s Three Strikes Law should be declared unconstitutional “retroactively” 24 because it violates “civil rights 1-15 and [unidentified] civil liberties ‘ganrunteed’ [sic] by 25 the United States Constitution.”2 (Id. at 1). 26

27 2 It is possible, though by no means certain, that by “civil rights 1-15,” Plaintiff may be referring to rights guaranteed under the First through the Fifteenth Amendments. 28 Elsewhere in the Complaint Plaintiff asserts that California’s Three Strikes Law goes against “our fundamental right and privilege to be guaranteed these [civil and

3 Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:12

1 Plaintiff requests that the Courts of California be required to “remove 3 strikes 2 retroactively,” (id. at 3), including in his own case. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff further seeks a 3 monetary award of $100,000 in compensatory damages for intentional infliction of 4 emotional distress. (Id. at 3). 5 6 C. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Frivolous And Amendment Would Be Futile 7 8 The Complaint suffers from many incurable defects that warrant immediate 9 dismissal of this action. Plaintiff’s sole constitutional claim is a facial challenge to the 10 constitutionality of California’s Three Strikes Law. A constitutional challenge is “‘facial’ 11 [if] . . . it is not limited to plaintiffs’ particular case, but challenges application of the law 12 more broadly . . . .” John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 194 (2010); see also Young v. 13 Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765, 779 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (“A facial challenge is a claim that 14 the legislature has violated the Constitution, while an as-applied challenge is a claim 15 directed at the execution of the law.”). Facial challenges are disfavored. Wash. State 16 Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008). “A facial challenge 17 to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since 18 the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act 19 would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); accord Young, 992 20 F.3d at 779 (“Because a facial challenge is directed to the legislature, the plaintiff must 21 show that ‘no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid[.]’”) 22 (brackets in original; internal citation omitted); Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087, 1101 (9th 23 Cir. 2021) (en banc); see also Issacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2013) 24 (Salerno’s “no set of circumstances” standard applies to all facial challenges except in 25 First Amendment and abortion cases). “[A] generally applicable statute is not facially 26 invalid unless the statute ‘can never be applied in a constitutional manner,’” United States 27

28 constitutional] rights by our government and the first 10 Amendments of the United States Constitution.” (Complaint at 3).

4 Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:13

1 v. Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lanier v. City of Woodburn, 2 518 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original)), or “lacks any ‘plainly 3 legitimate sweep.’” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 472 (2010) (quoting 4 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740 n.7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in 5 judgments) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A court’s review of a facial challenge is 6 “‘limited to the text of the statute itself,’ and Plaintiffs’ (and amici’s) individual 7 circumstances do not factor into [the] analysis.” Duncan, 19 F.4th at 1101 (quoting 8 Young, 992 F.3d at 779). 9 10 Even if Plaintiff had attempted to identify the specific “civil and constitutional” 11 rights that California’s Three Strikes Law purportedly violates and explained how it 12 violates them, which he did not, his blanket challenge, which seeks to invalidate 13 California’s Three Strikes Law in all circumstances, necessarily fails because the United 14 States Supreme Court has expressly upheld the constitutionality of California’s Three 15 Strikes Law. See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 24-28 (2003) (repeat offender’s 16 sentence of 25 years-to-life for theft of three golf clubs under California’s Three Strikes 17 Law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual 18 punishment); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 77 (2003) (California state court’s 19 affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for third-strike petty theft of five 20 videotapes was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law). Because 21 lower federal courts are bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions, Plaintiff’s facial 22 challenge, completely devoid of facts or context, cannot show that there is no set of 23 circumstances in which California’s Three Strikes Law may be constitutionally applied. 24 See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997) (lower courts should “‘leav[e] to this 25 Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions’”) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. 26 Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)). 27 28 The Complaint fails in other regards as well. In both the caption and the first

5 Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:14

1 sentence of the Complaint, Plaintiff styles his challenge to California’s Three Strikes Law 2 as a “class action lawsuit.” (Complaint at 1). However, because Plaintiff is proceeding 3 pro se, he can bring suit only to redress harms that he personally suffered. “It is well 4 established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se . . . is personal to the litigant and 5 does not extend to other parties or entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 6 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the sole named Defendant -- the State of California 7 Judicial System -- is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the extent that 8 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages or retrospective declaratory relief. The U.S. Supreme 9 Court “has consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in 10 federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Edelman v. 11 Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). Actions against state courts, like other arms of the 12 state government, “are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Simmons v. Sacramento 13 Cnty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Lund v. Cowan, 5 14 F.4th 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2022 WL 199398 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2022) 15 (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applied to state court judge sued in his official 16 capacity in suit challenging constitutionality of state statute). 17 18 Because Plaintiff has neither paid the full filing fee nor filed an application to 19 proceed IFP, this case cannot go forward. However, even if Plaintiff filed an adequately- 20 supported IFP application, it would be denied as frivolous because Plaintiff’s cursory 21 challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Three Strikes Law has already been 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6 Case 5:21-cv-02003-ODW-PVC Document 4 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7of7 Page ID#:15

1 || adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, this action is immediately 2 || DISMISSED without leave to amend. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. .

« || Dated: February 7, 2022 GE. Wie 8 UNITED STA ES ISTRICT JUDGE 9

10 ul Presented by: 12 ° 13 huh MN 14 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28