Owens v. Menlo Park Police Department

Background

Kenneth Oliver Owens, a former detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Menlo Park Police Department and others. The case had previously been dismissed without prejudice on February 13, 2019, before the complaint was screened, because mail to Owens was returned as undeliverable and he did not update the court with a current address. Owens later updated his address and asked to continue the case.

The court reopened the case and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires a court to review complaints by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Claims and analysis

Owens alleged that a Menlo Park police officer assaulted him between June 14 and June 21, 2016, and sought money damages. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state law.

The court also applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey: when a damages claim would imply that a conviction or sentence is invalid, the plaintiff must show that the conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court noted that Owens had pleaded guilty on June 22, 2016, in an earlier round of the case, but it was unclear whether that plea related to the alleged assault or whether the conviction had been invalidated.

The court therefore required more information about the assault, how the officer allegedly violated Owens’s constitutional rights, whether the conviction was related to the assault, whether Owens was in custody, and whether the defendant was a police officer or a county-jail deputy. The court said exhibits from the earlier round indicated that Owens was in custody during the dates he identified, but it was unclear whether the incident was related to an arrest or occurred in jail.

Owens also made allegations against court staff for failing to send paperwork in his various cases. The court found those allegations meritless and dismissed them with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted Owens’s request to continue with the case and reopened it. It granted his motion to proceed without paying filing fees. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and required an amended complaint within 28 days of the order’s filing. The amended complaint had to include all claims Owens wished to pursue, use the caption and civil case number from the order, and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.

The order also stated that Owens was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes through a separate notice, and complying with court orders on time. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided signature.