# (PC) Abreu v. Shasta County Sheriff's Office

> District Court, E.D. California · April 8, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841608

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 8, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841608

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BLUE F.C. ABREU, No. 2: 25-cv-0813 CSK P
12 Plaintiff, ORDER
13 v.
14 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
19
This proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20
Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
21
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
22
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C.
23
§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in
24
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct
25
the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and
26
forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments
27
of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These
28
1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the
2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.
3 § 1915(b)(2).
4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
5 I. SCREENING STANDARDS
6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally
9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an
14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably
19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at
20 1227.
21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain
22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the
23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic
24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a
26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations
27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.
28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the
1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.
2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal
3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as
4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the
5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
7 The Civil Rights Act
8 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal
9 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
10 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d
11 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the
12 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal
13 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.
14 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44
15 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable
16 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
17 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
18 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including
19 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision,
20 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
21 1208 (9th Cir. 2011).
22 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
23 In his first claim, plaintiff alleges “corruption,” and states that due to law enforcement’s
24 failure to protect plaintiff’s rights from gang stalkers and human and sex traffickers, he was left to
25 defend himself against defendant Perry Fore, and was “lied on” by defendant Daniel Simmons,
26 which led to a false arrest report, that led to plaintiff’s false imprisonment, that led to false
27 conviction. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) In his second claim, plaintiff alleges “retaliation,” and
28 “corruption,” again citing false arrest, reports and imprisonment. (Id. at 4.) In claim three,
1 plaintiff claims that defendant Perry Fore threatened plaintiff and defendant Daniel Simmons
2 gave a false statement, defendant Sheriff’s Deputy Micah B. Scheibe falsified the arrest report,
3 that all led to “over a year of exposure to abuse, neglect and mistreatment of the mentally ill”
4 while plaintiff was housed at the Shasta County Jail. (Id. at 5.)
5 As injury, plaintiff claims he has lost his freedom, suffered emotional distress, and lost
6 income. Plaintiff seeks money damages and an internal affairs investigation.
7 III. DISCUSSION
8 A. Improper Defendants
9 Plaintiff names two individuals, Perry Fore, then owner of Roosters Landing, Anderson,
10 California, and Daniel W. Simmons, then lessor of Roosters Landing, as defendants. (ECF No. 1
11 at 2.) However, plaintiff includes no allegations demonstrating that these individuals acted under
12 color of state law. See West, 487 U.S. at 48.
13 B. Ongoing Criminal Proceedings
14 Plaintiff claims that he is being subject to retaliatory false charges. Under Younger v.
15 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with a pending state criminal case.
16 “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity,
17 comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm.
18 v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and footnote omitted).
19 Younger abstention is required
20 if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is
ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3)
21 the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional
issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would
22 enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e.,
would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger
23 disapproves.
24 Id. at 1092 (citations omitted).
25 Here, the Court finds that the four requirements for exercising Younger abstention are
26 met. Based on the allegations in the complaint and plaintiff’s numerous subsequent filings, the
27 state-initiated criminal proceeding against plaintiff was ongoing at the time he filed the instant
28
1 action.1 (ECF No. 1, 5-7, 8, 10.) “The critical date for purposes of deciding whether abstention
2 principles apply is the date the federal action is filed.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 969
3 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). In addition, if a prisoner is convicted, the Younger abstention
4 doctrine applies while a case works its way through the state appellate process. New Orleans
5 Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368-69 (1989) (“When, in a
6 proceeding to which Younger applies, a state trial court has entered judgment, the losing party
7 cannot, of course, pursue equitable remedies in federal district court while concurrently
8 challenging the trial court’s judgment on appeal”); Canales-Robles v. Peters, 270 F. Supp. 3d
9 1230, 1241 (D. Or. 2017) (“To the extent Canales-Robles seeks intervention in his ongoing post
10 conviction relief case, Younger requires declining jurisdiction over Canales-Robles’s claims for
11 injunctive relief”).
12 The second requirement for Younger abstention is also met because “state criminal
13 proceedings implicate important state interests.” Lazarus v. Baca, 389 F. App’x 700, 701 (9th
14 Cir. 2010) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)); Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545,
15 585 (1979); Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44). Third, no reason exists that would bar the state court
16 from addressing plaintiff’s claims. Further, allowing plaintiff to proceed in federal court before
17 the conclusion of his state court proceedings would have the practical effect of enjoining the state
18 proceedings, because a decision in plaintiff’s favor would require a finding that the pending
19 charges were falsified. Thus, the fourth Younger requirement is met.
20 Accordingly, this Court should not interfere with plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal
21 proceedings, and finds that this action is barred under the Younger abstention doctrine. See
22 Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45.
23 C. Failure to State a Claim
24 Finally, even if abstention under Younger was not appropriate, plaintiff failed to allege
25 personal involvement by the remaining defendants, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy
26

27 1 The Shasta County Superior Court’s online docket confirms ongoing criminal proceedings
against plaintiff. See Shasta County Superior Court docket for Case No. 24F-05063. Plaintiff
28 was sentenced on April 4, 2025. Id.
1 Micah B. Scheibe, in any alleged constitutional violation. (ECF No. 1 at 3-6.) See Barren v.
2 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (liability under § 1983 must be based on the
3 personal involvement of the defendant). Thus, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights
4 claim against either defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Office or Deputy Micah B. Scheibe.
5 D. Conclusion
6 The majority of plaintiff’s allegations are barred under Younger, and plaintiff cannot state
7 a claim against defendants Perry Fore and Daniel W. Simmons where there are no allegations
8 demonstrating that these individuals acted under color of state law. Plaintiff includes no charging
9 allegations as to the remaining defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Micah B.
10 Scheibe. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In an
11 abundance of caution, the Court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
12 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND
13 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
14 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g.,
15 West, 487 U.S. at 48. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
16 defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability
17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s
18 actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167
19 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
20 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
21 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
22 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
23 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists
24 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez
25 v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint
26 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation
27 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any
28 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim
1 | and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is granted.
4 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff
5 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
6 || § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the
7 || Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently
8 | herewith.
9 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
10 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached
11 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:
12 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and
13 b. An original of the Amended Complaint.
14 | Plaintiffs amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the
15 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must
16 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”
17 | Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of
18 || this action.
19
20 || Dated: April 7, 2025 A aA
Aan Spe |
CHI SOO KIM
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
/V/abre0813.14n

25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BLUE F.C. ABREU, No. 2: 25-cv-0813 CSK P
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
14 et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order
18 filed on ______________ (date).
19
20 Amended Complaint
21 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint)
22 DATED:
________________________________
23 Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841608. Public record. Not legal advice.