Moses v. Marin Corporation

Background

David John Moses, an inmate at Napa State Hospital proceeding without an attorney, filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named Marin Corporation and several individuals, including Officers J. Carpenter, “John Doe One,” and “John Doe Two Leland,” Marin County District Attorney Lori Fugali, Marin County Superior Court Judge Paul Haakenson, Marin County Sheriff Scardina, and James M. Kim.

Moses challenged his arrests, criminal charges, confinement in Marin County Jail, and commitment to Napa State Hospital. He also alleged that officials violated his rights by using flags with gold fringe. He described jail conditions including limited time outside the cell, poor food, denied mail, and being prevented from receiving two federal tax vouchers. He sought release from custody, dismissal of his criminal charges, monetary relief, and other remedies.

Screening standard

Because Moses sought relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a § 1983 claim allege both a violation of federal rights and action by someone acting under state law.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed Moses’s claims challenging the lawfulness of his arrests, criminal charges, confinement, and commitment because he sought immediate or faster release from custody. The court stated that this relief must be sought through a separate petition challenging the custody, rather than through a § 1983 civil-rights action. These claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Moses could bring them in a new case through the appropriate type of petition.

The court also dismissed without prejudice Moses’s claims for damages based on allegedly unconstitutional confinement or other conduct whose unlawfulness would invalidate the confinement. Under the rule discussed by the court, such damages claims could not proceed unless the confinement decision had been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or invalidated through a federal custody-challenge proceeding.

The allegation that James M. Kim “will” charge Moses for housing at the Marin County Jail failed because Moses did not identify authority making such charges unlawful and did not allege that he had been charged, billed, or had his account debited. The court found the allegation speculative and therefore not a plausible claim for relief.

The court found frivolous Moses’s claims based on flags with gold fringe. It concluded that the allegations about the flags representing the King and Queen of England, and about their use violating Moses’s rights, lacked a factual basis and relied on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

The court also dismissed any possible claim concerning the jail conditions. Moses did not allege that any defendant was personally involved in creating or causing the conditions. The court held that Sheriff Scardina could not be held liable solely because he supervised jail staff. Because Moses had already been given an opportunity to amend and still did not adequately plead this claim, the court determined that further amendment was not warranted.

Excessive-force claim and further proceedings

The court held that Moses’s allegations about Officer “John Doe One” using force during the arrest, when read generously, could state a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. The claim was the sole exception to the dismissal of the first amended complaint.

The court permitted Moses to use discovery to identify “John Doe One” and ordered him to submit that defendant’s name within 28 days of the order. If Moses provided the name, service would be ordered on that defendant. If he did not provide the name or show cause for an extension, the claims against “John Doe One” would be dismissed without prejudice to filing them in a new case that identifies the defendant.