Foster v. Newsom

Background

Martin Lee Foster, who was detained at Monterey County Jail, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants named in his amended complaint were Governor Gavin Newsom and California Highway Patrol Officers Cody Gil and S. Shaeffer-Bernhard. Foster alleged that he entered the state capitol on August 8, 2022, was surrounded by officers while writing a complaint, and was arrested without probable cause. He said that, when he asked whether he was being arrested “for the Governor,” one officer answered yes.

Foster requested “all assets and liabilities, all current income and expenditures, all executory contract and unexpired leases, and a statement of financial affairs.” The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Foster then filed the amended complaint addressed in this order.

Screening and Claims

Because Foster was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right or law was violated by someone acting under state authority.

Liberally construing the amended complaint, the court found that Foster stated a claim based on a false or unlawful arrest. The court did not decide whether the arrest was actually unlawful. Instead, it said the claim might be barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a § 1983 damages claim when success would call into question a related criminal conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or invalidated through federal habeas relief.

The court gave Foster an opportunity to show that the false-arrest claim was not barred. It identified two possible ways to do so: show that he was not later charged with and convicted of a crime connected to the arrest, or show that any related conviction or sentence had been invalidated. The court also found that the requested financial statements and documents did not clearly explain how they would remedy the alleged injury. It directed Foster to request specific and appropriate damages, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered that the amended complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Foster was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to file a second amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies, addressing the potential Heck bar, and stating specific and appropriate relief. The new complaint had to use the case caption and number, include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and answer all questions if Foster used the court’s complaint form.

The order states that the second amended complaint would replace the original and amended complaints. Claims and defendants omitted from the second amended complaint would no longer be part of the action. If Foster failed to respond as ordered and within the required time, the action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The order also directed the Clerk to send Foster two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.