Watts v. Epps

Background

Dante Watts, an incarcerated person at the Santa Clara County Jail proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named David Epps, the public defender representing him in his criminal proceedings, and Lieutenant Marquard of the San Jose Police Department.

Watts alleged that his constitutional rights were violated on April 5, 2024. He referred to a false public-defender report and a technicality in his criminal case. He alleged that Epps failed to file a motion seeking dismissal of the charges under California Penal Code sections 995 and 1385. Watts also alleged that Marquard gave false testimony by saying that Marquard had read Watts his Miranda rights when Watts claimed that did not happen.

Watts asked the court to order the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate people in or connected with the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office and district attorney’s office for providing information about his case to jail staff. He also stated that he was on parole, referred to a right to a parole hearing within 45 working days, and requested a parole form from the California Board of Parole Hearings.

Screening standard

Because Watts sought relief from government officials while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Watts could not obtain an FBI investigation or a California parole form through a federal civil-rights lawsuit. The court does not determine what investigations the FBI will conduct, and it does not provide California parole forms. The court therefore concluded that Watts had not stated a claim capable of judicial determination and review based on the relief he requested.

The court did not decide whether Watts’s allegations about Epps’s representation or Marquard’s statement about Miranda warnings stated a valid claim. Instead, it directed Watts to provide more information if he amended his complaint, including whether he had been convicted, whether his criminal proceedings were still pending in state court, whether the charges had been dismissed, and whether he remained in custody. The court explained that these facts were needed to determine whether the allegations could be reviewed in a civil-rights action rather than through another type of legal proceeding.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Watts could file an amended complaint by October 7, 2024. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number in the order, include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and state all claims he wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint. The court warned that the case may be dismissed if Watts did not file an amended complaint on time or if the amendment was insufficient. The order also required Watts to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.