TaldemL v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-00477
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Delano Taldeml v. U.S. District Court, Judge Gilliam reopened the case but dismissed it with prejudice after screening found no viable civil-rights claim.
Delano Taldeml’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed with prejudice; the court also directed the clerk to provide forms for a petition challenging custody if he was contesting his conviction.
What happened
In Delano Taldeml v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an incarcerated plaintiff filed a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit. He cited several constitutional provisions and legal concepts but did not explain what actions or failures by the defendant violated his rights.
The court first vacated its earlier dismissal and related judgment because the plaintiff had filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. After screening the complaint, however, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. It ruled that the federal district court could not be sued under the civil-rights law because it was not a state actor. The court also stated that a challenge to the validity of the plaintiff’s conviction must be brought in a petition challenging his custody, and directed the clerk to send him the necessary forms.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the case reopened, dismissed it with prejudice, entered judgment for the defendants, terminated pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- TaldemL v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation · No. 4:23-cv-00477
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 2, 2023
Background
Delano Taldeml, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption identifies the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as the defendant. The court had previously dismissed the action because Taldeml had not filed a complaint and had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application to proceed without paying it.
Taldeml then filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint cited the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, equal protection, alleged false or insufficient evidence, and confrontation rights. The court found that the complaint did not identify the specific actions or failures that allegedly violated those rights. It also noted that Taldeml had not sought relief through the grievance process, according to the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. Under that screening process, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
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 law. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim. It specifically ruled that Taldeml could not bring a § 1983 action against the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California because the court is not a state actor.
The court dismissed with prejudice because it determined that allowing an amended complaint would be futile. It further stated that, if Taldeml was challenging the validity of the conviction for which he was in custody, he must file a petition challenging that custody instead. The clerk was ordered to send him two copies of the court’s form for that petition.
Disposition
The court ordered the clerk to vacate the earlier order of dismissal and related judgment and to reopen the action. It then dismissed the action with prejudice, entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Taldeml, terminated all pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.