Torres v. Becton

Background

Mario Torres initially asserted three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state law, and one state-law claim. He later filed a First Amended Complaint adding a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court had dismissed both earlier complaints for failure to state a claim and had allowed limited amendment. Torres then filed a Second Amended Complaint.

The order states that the court was required to dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) if it failed to state a claim for relief. The court also stated that Torres would receive no further opportunity to amend because he had not cured the deficiencies previously identified.

Federal Claims Based on the § 1381 Motion

Torres alleged that the Office of the Clerk of the Contra Costa County Superior Court failed to file his motion under California Penal Code § 1381. He claimed that this violated rights involving access to the courts, due process, equal protection, and a speedy trial. Because the court had already dismissed those claims without leave to amend in its December 20, 2019 order, it ordered that they be stricken from the Second Amended Complaint.

Discovery-Related Claims

Torres alleged that Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Public Defender Robin Lipetzky, and Christopher Martin, a private attorney appointed to represent him, failed to provide discovery or information related to his criminal proceedings.

The court held that claims against Martin were subject to dismissal because he was a private attorney, not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. The court also said that, even assuming the alleged discovery policy could qualify as government action, the claims against the county and Lipetzky still failed. Torres did not identify a nonfrivolous underlying claim that he had been prevented from pursuing, or explain how the missing discovery had blocked access to the courts. The court further found his retaliation allegation conclusory and insufficient. To the extent he sought damages or declaratory relief based on ineffective assistance that would imply his conviction was invalid, the court held those claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey.

Municipal-Liability Claim

Torres asserted a Monell claim against Contra Costa County and the Offices of the District Attorney, Clerk, and Public Defender. The court found that his new allegation about a history of similar complaints and lawsuits was vague and conclusory. It also found that his other allegations were bare assertions and a formulaic statement of the elements of a municipal-liability claim. The court therefore dismissed the Monell claim.

State-Law Claim and Disposition

The court stated that the parties were not diverse in citizenship and that its authority over the state-law claim was supplemental, meaning dependent on the presence of federal claims. After dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim because the case was still at an early stage.

The court ordered three things: (1) federal claims based on the alleged failure to file the § 1381 motion were stricken from the Second Amended Complaint; (2) the remaining federal claims were dismissed without further leave to amend; and (3) the state-law claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.