McCullom v. Keen

Background

Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner confined at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer against Chief Probation Officer “Jhon Keen” of the San Mateo County Probation Department. The court stated that McCullom’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed separately.

Screening and alleged claims

Because McCullom was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires the court to identify claims that are legally supportable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

The complaint was handwritten, more than 25 pages long, and, in the court’s view, disorganized and incoherent. It referred to Judge Paul Delucchi, alleged that Oakland Police Department officers fabricated reports and obtained perjured statements, challenged information in a plea-bargain database, alleged an illegal search and seizure, referred to alleged solicitations for McCullom’s murder for hire on the dark web, alleged discrimination in housing placement, and described alleged wrongdoing by Livermore Police Department officers connected to a young woman’s death in a train accident. McCullom sought compensatory and exemplary damages.

Reasons for dismissal with leave to amend

The court identified several deficiencies. It said the allegations were not sufficiently pleaded for the court to identify a legally supportable claim under § 1983, particularly against the only named defendant, Keen. It also concluded that the allegations did not appear related and therefore appeared to violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20(a), which govern when multiple claims and defendants may be joined in one lawsuit.

The court further stated that references to criminal convictions raised the possibility that related damages claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a § 1983 damages claim that would undermine an existing conviction or sentence generally is not legally cognizable unless the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated in one of the ways recognized by law. The court did not make a definitive ruling that Heck barred McCullom’s claims.

The court also said it was unclear how Keen had violated McCullom’s constitutional or federal rights. It explained that probation officers may have absolute immunity from damages claims under § 1983 for functions closely associated with the judicial process, but that immunity depends on the function performed. The court did not decide whether Keen was immune because the complaint did not clearly identify the actions forming the basis of the suit.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It gave McCullom one opportunity to file an amended complaint within 28 days, requiring him to correct the identified deficiencies, comply with Rules 18(a) and 20(a), and provide a short and plain statement explaining the claim and the facts supporting it. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.

The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint. Claims and defendants omitted from the amended complaint would no longer be part of the action. The court also ordered that failure to respond within the required time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on June 28, 2021.