Wilkins v. State of California

Background

Deon McNeil Wilkins filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had previously reviewed and dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend. After the action was later dismissed for failure to comply with a local rule, the court reopened it. Wilkins then filed a first amended complaint, which the court reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Wilkins alleged that unidentified people repeatedly racially profiled, arrested, and released him during 2016 and 2017. He also alleged that he was held for 14 months and that officers used excessive force on several occasions. He stated that records and medical records existed concerning the incidents.

Screening and pleading requirements

Section 1915A requires a federal court to screen a prisoner’s case against a governmental entity or government officer or employee. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

The court found that the first amended complaint failed to state a claim because it relied on conclusory allegations rather than supporting facts. The court said that simply labeling conduct as racial profiling, illegal detention, illegal search and seizure, false arrest, or excessive force was not enough. Wilkins needed to describe the events in enough detail to make each claim plausible.

Specific deficiencies identified

For a racial-profiling claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the court said Wilkins needed facts showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his membership in a protected class. The court noted that he did not identify the protected class or allege facts showing discriminatory treatment.

For search claims under the Fourth Amendment, Wilkins needed to identify what was searched and explain what made the search unreasonable. For false-arrest claims, he needed to describe each arrest, identify the crime involved, and allege facts showing that the arrest lacked probable cause. For excessive-force claims, he needed to describe the force used and the circumstances in which it was used.

The court also said that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey might bar some claims. That rule can prevent a damages claim when success would imply that an existing conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court directed Wilkins to explain whether each arrest led to a conviction, charges that remained pending, or a dismissal or other favorable resolution. It also warned that some claims might be time-barred.

Wilkins was required to identify each individual defendant and connect that defendant to specific conduct. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because someone employs a person who allegedly violated another’s rights. It also discussed the requirements for holding a local government responsible for a constitutional violation based on an official policy or custom. The order further discussed constitutional limits on lawsuits against a state under the Eleventh Amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Wilkins to file a complete second amended complaint by September 2, 2022, using the required case caption and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The new pleading could not rely on allegations incorporated from an earlier complaint. The court stated that this was Wilkins’s final opportunity to state a claim and warned that failure to file the required pleading or correct the identified defects would result in dismissal of the action.