Lupercio v. Mendoza
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-03173
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lupercio v. Mendoza, Judge Tigar dismissed Ramon Navarro Lupercio’s prisoner civil-rights complaint with prejudice because it failed to state a claim.
Ramon Navarro Lupercio’s § 1983 complaint was dismissed with prejudice; Macario Mendoza received judgment in his favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Lupercio v. Mendoza, Ramon Navarro Lupercio, a San Quentin State Prison inmate representing himself, sued Macario Mendoza under a federal civil-rights law. Lupercio alleged that Mendoza lied during Lupercio’s 2003 jury trial and sought $25 million and a new trial.
The court screened the complaint and found that it did not allege a violation of federal law or the Constitution. It also found that Mendoza was a private individual, not someone acting for the state as required for this type of civil-rights claim. The court said that a challenge to Lupercio’s conviction must instead be brought through a petition challenging his imprisonment.
Judge Tigar dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court denied all pending motions as moot, entered judgment for Mendoza, closed the case, and directed the Clerk to send Lupercio two habeas petition forms.
The detailed version
- Lupercio v. Mendoza · No. 4:21-cv-03173
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
Ramon Navarro Lupercio, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Macario Mendoza. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Lupercio had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Lupercio alleged that, during his 2003 jury trial, Mendoza lied under oath and falsely identified Lupercio’s assailant. Lupercio also referred to a kidnapping but did not clearly explain who kidnapped whom. He further alleged that Mendoza sexually abused three girls and that one victim’s family was in the courtroom during the trial. The court understood Lupercio to be arguing that these allegations showed he was innocent of the crime for which he was incarcerated. He requested $25 million in compensatory damages and mentioned wanting a new jury trial.
Screening Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. Although courts read self-represented pleadings liberally, a complaint must contain more than labels, conclusions, or an unsupported accusation that the defendant caused harm.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim for two stated reasons. First, Lupercio had not alleged a violation of federal law or the federal Constitution. Second, Mendoza was a private individual rather than a person acting under state authority.
The court also stated that Lupercio appeared to be challenging the validity of his conviction. It explained that a person seeking to challenge a conviction must use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than a § 1983 damages action.
Disposition
The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court denied all pending motions as moot, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Mendoza and against Lupercio, and ordered the case closed. The Clerk was also directed to send Lupercio two copies of a habeas petition form.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.