McCullom v. Newsom
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05738
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In McCullom v. Newsom, Judge Freeman dismissed the amended civil-rights complaint with prejudice because it failed to state a claim.
The ruling affected Kevin L. McCullom and the government defendants named in his amended complaint, including Jhon Keen and Wendy Still, because the action was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In McCullom v. Newsom, Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner representing himself, sued government officials under a federal civil-rights law. His amended complaint named county probation officers Jhon Keen and Wendy Still and sought damages and an order requiring changes.
McCullom claimed that inaccurate county databases led to an unlawful sentence and violated his constitutional rights. The court ruled that his damages claim was barred because he had not shown that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated, and that his other allegations were unrelated and unclear.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court found that McCullom had already received one opportunity to amend and did not correct the identified problems.
The detailed version
- McCullom v. Newsom · No. 5:21-cv-05738
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner confined at Santa Rita Jail, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His original complaint named numerous defendants, including the administration of former President Donald Trump, Governor Gavin Newsom, county officials, probation officers, and a sheriff. The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend, identifying problems with the complaint’s organization, its failure to connect specific facts to specific state actors, its apparent combination of unrelated claims and defendants, and its repetition of allegations from other lawsuits.
McCullom then filed a 31-page amended complaint naming only San Mateo County Chief Probation Officer Jhon Keen and Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Wendy Still. He alleged that the counties failed to keep their databases accurate, causing an allegedly unlawful sentence. He also alleged that the database problems breached a plea agreement, and that officials manipulated information about his mental-health status in violation of the First Amendment. He sought damages and injunctive relief.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a government entity or officer. Under that screening statute, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court rejected the claim based on inaccurate databases and the allegedly unlawful sentence. It explained that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures but does not apply to a person already in lawful custody. To challenge an unlawful state conviction or sentence, McCullom would need to use a federal petition challenging the custody. The court also applied the rule that a civil-rights damages claim attacking a conviction or sentence cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside. McCullom did not allege that this had happened. His statement that a federal petition was pending did not remove the bar to his damages claim.
The court also found that McCullom’s allegations about his mental-health status were unclear and appeared unrelated to the database allegations against Keen and Still. Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants cannot be combined in one action under the federal joinder rules. The court further noted that McCullom had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not corrected all of the defects identified in the original complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order on April 21, 2022.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.