Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EUGENE LEON PRICE, No. 2:25-cv-2567 CKD P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19 636(b)(1).

20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a

21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be 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 separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the

24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court.

25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account

28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

6 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon

7 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The

8 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

9 In his complaint, plaintiff seeks release from prison. When a state prisoner challenges the

10 legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier

11 or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez,

12 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

13 Plaintiff asserts violations of California law, but plaintiff fails to plead compliance with

14 the California Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff is informed that before he may proceed on a claim

15 arising under California law in this court he must comply with the terms of the California Tort

16 Claims Act and then plead compliance. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.; Mangold v. Cal. Pub.

17 Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Complaints must present facts

18 demonstrating compliance, rather than simply conclusions suggesting as much. Shirk v. Vista

19 Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (2007).

20 Plaintiff identifies the California Court of Appeal as a defendant. The Supreme Court has

21 held that, generally speaking, judges acting within the course and scope of their judicial duties are

22 absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547

23 (1967).

24 Plaintiff seeks damages for claims that imply the invalidity of convictions which is not

25 allowed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

26 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

27 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

28 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in

1 | specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C.

2 || § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the

3 || claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

4 || allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

5 || Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

6 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

7 || make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

8 | complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

11 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees

12 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California

13 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

14 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

15 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

16 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

17 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket

18 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an

19 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

20 | be dismissed.

21 | Dated: September 29, 2025 / ae / 4 [iy ai

23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24

25

26 | |

pric2567.14

28