McCullom v. Newsom

Background

Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner confined at Santa Rita Jail, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named the “Former Presidential Donald Trump’s Administration,” Governor Gavin Newsom, Alameda County officials, probation officers, and Sheriff Gregory Ahern, among others. The opinion states that McCullom alleged racketeering, conspiracy, national-security-related misconduct, inaccurate databases, interference with interstate commerce, false arrest, excessive force during booking, problems with evidence in criminal proceedings, and challenges to his commitment to a state hospital and involuntary medication.

McCullom also filed a motion asking for review by a three-judge district court and a motion seeking appointment of counsel. The court noted that his request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or officer. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts connected to specific state actors for the court to identify a legally valid Section 1983 claim. It also found that the 122-page complaint was disorganized and incoherent and did not provide the short, plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court explained that length alone is not enough to dismiss a complaint, but that this complaint was not coherent, well organized, or legally viable.

The court further stated that the allegations appeared to improperly combine unrelated claims and defendants, potentially violating Rules 18 and 20. It also found that many allegations duplicated claims in other lawsuits pending before the court. Finally, the references to criminal proceedings indicated that some damages claims might be barred by the rule that prevents a civil-rights damages claim from proceeding when success would undermine a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated.

Rulings

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. McCullom was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to submit an amended complaint correcting the identified problems and complying with Rules 8, 18, and 20. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The court denied McCullom’s motion for a three-judge district court because that procedure applies when required by an Act of Congress or when a lawsuit challenges the apportionment of congressional or statewide legislative districts. The court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel because he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointed counsel in a civil case.

The court ordered that failure to file an amended complaint as directed would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The order terminated the two motions.