Swain v. Director of Corrections

Background

Darius Swain, an inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed what he called a “writ of replevin complaint.” He sought a judgment against the Alameda County Superior Court and the County Courthouse, while naming the Director of Corrections as the defendant. Swain alleged that a financial responsibility was imposed during his arraignment, that he did not know about a fine imposed in addition to imprisonment, and that a fiduciary failed to act properly as his trustee. He also referred to a court-imposed lien, real property, and a third-party contract.

Screening and jurisdiction

Because Swain was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court explained that a writ of replevin was not available based on the allegations presented. It also found no facts establishing that the requested writ was necessary or appropriate to support the court’s jurisdiction.

The court stated that federal jurisdiction could be based on diversity of citizenship or a federal question, such as a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint did not appear to establish diversity jurisdiction, and it did not allege a federal question. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law.

Deficiencies in the complaint

The court described the complaint as largely incomprehensible and found that it failed to connect the legal concepts mentioned to an understandable set of facts. It therefore failed to state a claim for relief. The court also found that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court explained that labels, conclusions, and a formulaic list of legal elements are insufficient.

The court instructed that an amended complaint must identify each defendant and explain what that defendant did or failed to do, when the conduct occurred, and how it caused a violation of Swain’s rights. It explained that a supervisor generally cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because an employee allegedly acted unlawfully. It also explained the requirements for imposing liability on a local government based on an official policy or custom.

The court further warned that a civil-rights action cannot be used to seek damages or declaratory relief for conduct that would make a conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise determined to be wrongful. If Swain wanted to challenge the lawfulness of his current custody, the court stated that he had to use a federal petition challenging his custody rather than a civil-rights action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It granted leave to amend so Swain could attempt to allege one or more claims. The amended complaint had to be complete, use the caption and case number in the order, and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The deadline was November 29, 2019. The court stated that failure to file by that deadline would result in dismissal of the action.