Evans v. Bonta

Background

Burl Evans filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while in custody at Napa State Hospital. He represented himself and paid the full civil-action filing fee. He named California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Deputy Public Defender Cecily Grey, Chief District Attorney Kevin Bell, Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputies, and “Does 2-4.”

Evans listed claims for false imprisonment, due process, equal protection, ineffective assistance of counsel, speedy-trial rights, and an invalid search warrant. He requested declaratory relief, an order concerning a new trial, and monetary compensation. The court stated that the handwriting was difficult to read and, more importantly, that it was unclear whether Evans was challenging the conditions of his confinement or his criminal conviction or sentence. The court therefore could not determine whether the filing should proceed as a civil-rights complaint or as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law used to challenge certain state custody.

Civil-rights pleading issues

The court explained that a § 1983 claim must identify each person who personally caused the alleged constitutional violation and describe what that person did. A supervisor is not automatically liable for a subordinate’s conduct.

The court stated that Bell would likely have absolute immunity for prosecuting Evans because prosecutors are generally immune from § 1983 liability for initiating a prosecution or presenting the state’s case. The court dismissed the claim against Bell with leave to amend in good faith. It also stated that Grey’s claim would likely be dismissed because a defense lawyer performing traditional defense functions does not act under state law for purposes of § 1983, and it stated that any such dismissal would be with leave to amend in good faith.

The court dismissed the claim against Bonta with leave to amend, explaining that an attorney general generally has absolute immunity for actions within official duties, while noting an exception for actions wholly unrelated to those duties. As to the sheriff’s deputies and “Does 2-4,” the court found that Evans had not provided specific facts showing how each person caused a constitutional violation. It dismissed the claims against the Doe defendants with leave to amend so Evans could provide their names or specific facts about their involvement. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of those defendants without prejudice to filing a new action against them.

Habeas option and exhaustion

If Evans chose to proceed under § 2254, the court required him to state whether he was challenging his conviction or the execution of his sentence, explain his grounds for relief, and describe the steps he took to present his claims to the highest available state court. He also had to name the proper state officer responsible for his custody.

If he chose to proceed as a civil-rights plaintiff, the court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions. The court noted that Evans had already paid the civil-rights filing fee; a § 2254 petition would have a different filing fee.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 28 days. Evans was required to file either an amended civil-rights complaint or an amended § 2254 petition using the appropriate form, clearly identify the nature of his challenge, and provide the required factual and defendant information. The court stated that failure to file either form within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to send Evans both forms.