Calihan v. Sloinker

Background

Kenneth R. Calihan, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Calihan alleged that San Jose police officers Garrett Austin Sloinker and Barrera filed false charges against him on August 30, 2019, and presented false information to the district attorney. He alleged that this resulted in another inmate stabbing him a few weeks later. He also alleged that he expected the pending criminal charges to be dismissed.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority. Although self-represented pleadings are read liberally, the complaint still must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than merely state labels or conclusions.

The court found that the allegations about false charges did not state a claim because Calihan did not identify how the charges were false. For a deliberate-fabrication claim, the court stated that a plaintiff must show that an official deliberately fabricated evidence and that the fabrication caused a loss of liberty.

The court also said the claim might be barred or affected by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a person from seeking damages through a civil-rights action when success would call into question a conviction or sentence that has not already been determined to be wrongful. When a person is awaiting trial and success would undermine an anticipated conviction, the action may be stayed rather than dismissed. The court said it needed information about the specific charges and whether they were pending, had resulted in a conviction, or had been dismissed.

The court separately addressed the stabbing allegation. It found that merely alleging that the officers caused Calihan to be jailed, followed by a later stabbing, did not establish a sufficiently close causal connection. Calihan needed to allege what each defendant did or failed to do that caused the stabbing. The court stated that, if jail officials were responsible, Calihan could name those officials and allege facts addressing the requirements for a claim that an official failed to protect a pretrial detainee.

The complaint also named the San Jose Police Department but alleged no facts against that entity. The court explained that a municipality or police department cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs an individual alleged to have violated someone’s rights. The court allowed Calihan to try to plead a municipal-liability claim by identifying a specific policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Calihan was ordered to file an amended complaint by March 13, 2020, using the caption and civil case number in the order and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to provide a complete statement of his claims and follow the court’s directions. The court warned that failure to file the amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not decide whether Calihan ultimately could prove his claims.