1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN DAVID CROCKER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00499-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

15 DIVISION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 This case was opened when plaintiff filed a document styled as an application for removal 19 of a criminal case from the El Dorado County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Therein, plaintiff 20 alleges that his civil rights were violated both when he was arrested in December 2021 and during 21 criminal proceedings that followed. I construe plaintiff’s filing as a complaint and recommend 22 that it be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine.1 I also recommend that plaintiff’s 23 1 Plaintiff asks that his state criminal case be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455. ECF 24 No. 1 at 2. His filing, however, neither contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal nor does it appear to include a copy of all pleadings and orders from the state case, as 25 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Plaintiff does not name the State of California—the plaintiff in the state case—as a party; instead, the document’s caption lists as defendants the El Dorado 26 County Superior Court and several individuals. ECF No. 1 at 1. Furthermore, the filing asks, 27 somewhat oddly, that the criminal proceedings be removed to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Id. at 1-2. I find that plaintiff’s filing should be construed as a civil 28 complaint rather than as a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1455. 1 motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. I grant his motion to proceed in forma 2 pauperis. 3 Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 Analysis 22 Plaintiff’s two-page complaint consists largely of legal conclusions and fails to specify 23 how each named defendant violated his rights. It appears from the limited factual allegations and 24 the documents appended to the complaint that plaintiff seeks to challenge his December 2021 25 arrest and subsequent prosecution. See ECF No. 1 at 2-3, 5-7, 23-24. With respect to his arrest, 26 plaintiff claims defendant Wiens, a South Lake Tahoe police officer, and three unidentified 27 officers violated his constitutional rights by holding him against his will, unlawfully searching 28 him, failing to provide him Miranda warnings, and subjecting him “to involuntary servitude 1 before [he] had been found guilty of a crime before a jury . . . .” Id. at 3. 2 Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Vern Pierson, the El Dorado County District 3 Attorney, and Jay Linden, a Deputy District Attorney, unlawfully and maliciously filed a criminal 4 complaint against him in February 2022, after stating “in open court that ‘no complaint had been 5 filed.’” Id. at 2. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, but defendant Judge Michael 6 McLaughlin allegedly denied the motions and “entered a plea for [plaintiff] over [his] 7 objections.” Id. Plaintiff contends that the state criminal proceedings “should be removed from 8 the Quasi Tribunal Known as: Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado . . . pursuant to 9 28 U.S.C. § 1455.” Id. 10 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot proceed past screening. As an initial matter, four of the 11 defendants—the El Dorado Superior Court, Judge Michael McLaughlin, District Attorney Vern 12 Pierson, and Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden—are entitled to immunity. See Simmons v. 13 Sacramento Cnty. Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that claims against the 14 California Superior Court and its employees are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Gregory v. 15 Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The general rule . . . is that judges are immune from 16 suit for judicial acts within and even in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts were done 17 maliciously or corruptly; the only exception to this sweeping cloak of immunity exists for acts 18 done in ‘the clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”); Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 19 (1993) (“We have not retreated, however, from the principle that acts undertaken by a prosecutor 20 in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of 21 his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.”). 22 As for defendant Wiens and the three unidentified police officers, plaintiff provides no 23 explanation of how each defendant’s actions violated a specific constitutional right.2 See Jones v. 24 2 Plaintiff claims that he submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the 25 Lake Tahoe Police Department seeking the names of the three identified officers, and that the department refused to provide the officers’ names. ECF No. 1 at 3. To the extent that plaintiff 26 intended to assert a FOIA claim in this action, it fails; plaintiff has not named the Lake Tahoe 27 Police Department as a defendant, and FOIA applies only to federal agencies. 5 U.S.C. § 551(a); see Alo v. Clovis Police Dep’t, No. 1:23-cv-00273-EPG 2023 WL 2413720, *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28 28, 2023). 1 Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least 2 some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s 3 claim.”). 4 More fundamentally, plaintiff’s allegations, as well as his recently filed motion for a 5 temporary restraining order, indicate that criminal proceedings against him are ongoing. Under 6 the Younger3 abstention doctrine, federal courts are prohibited from enjoining state criminal 7 prosecutions where: “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding 8 implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings 9 to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical 10 effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 11 1133 (9th Cir. 2021). 12 The first and second elements are satisfied here: (1) State criminal proceedings against 13 plaintiff are ongoing and (2) implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 14 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from 15 federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court 16 considering equitable types of relief.”). The third element is also met: Notwithstanding plaintiff’s 17 complaints concerning the denial of his motions by Judge McLaughlin, there is no indication that 18 he does not have an adequate opportunity to raise in state court the same constitutional violations 19 challenged here. As for the fourth factor, plaintiff’s request for removal of the criminal case from 20 the El Dorado County Superior Court would have the practical effect of enjoining the criminal 21 proceedings against him. 22 Accordingly, Younger abstention applies, and plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. 23 Given that this court must abstain from considering plaintiff’s claims and nothing short of 24 changing the fundamentals of plaintiff’s allegations could result in a viable complaint, I 25 recommend that the dismissal be without leave to amend.4 Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 26 3 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 27 4 Once the state criminal proceedings conclude, plaintiff may, if he chooses, seek to litigate some or all of his claims in this district. With respect to his claims against the defendant 28 police officers, plaintiff is notified it may be appropriate to pursue such claims in the other action 1 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it 2 is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). I also necessarily recommend that plaintiff’s motion for a 4 temporary restraining order be denied. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must 5 show, among other factors, a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v. Natural 6 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 8 ECF No. 2, is granted. 9 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend under the Younger 11 abstention doctrine. 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 4, be denied. 13 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23 24 25 26 he has pending in this district—a case that is currently stayed pending resolution of state criminal 27 proceedings. See Crocker v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 2:22-cv-01099-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. 2022) (alleging that South Lake Tahoe police officers used excessive force when arresting plaintiff in 28 December 2022). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ July 19, 2023 Q_——. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28