Romancorrea v. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTONIO ROMANCORREA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00242-NONE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY 13 v. FILING FEE WITHIN 45 DAYS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE SEND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al., PLAINTIFF AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED 15 IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND A COMPLAINT Defendants. FORM ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A SECOND 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 45 DAYS 18 ECF No. 9 19 ORDER DISCHARGING THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ECF No. 2 22 Plaintiff Antonio Romancorrea is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint sought relief “for being incarcerated for the crime that [he] did not commit.” ECF No. 1 at 6. On March 24, 2020, the court ordered that plaintiff show cause why his case should not be dismissed as barred by the so-called favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, and suggested that he may wish to file a petition for habeas corpus instead of a civil rights complaint. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff moved three times for an extension of time to respond, see ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7, then responded to the order to show cause by filing an amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds new defendants—including the district attorney, the judge that sentenced him, and his prison counselor. The amended complaint also appears to add new claims, see ECF No. 9 at 5, although these claims appear in the form of a list of cases and rights, and the court is unable to determine what plaintiff believes each defendant has done to violate his rights. The amended complaint also has fifty pages of assorted attachments. Plaintiff’s central complaint still appears to be that he was unlawfully convicted and sentenced for a crime that he did not commit.

8 The court will give plaintiff one more chance to file, within 45 days, an amended complaint that states a legally cognizable claim. Again, if plaintiff’s complaint is that he is unlawfully incarcerated, he must seek relief in the form of a petition for habeas corpus, not a § 1983 complaint. The court does not mention this fact to suggest that plaintiff’s claims have no merit. Instead, it is simply a point about the proper legal framework through which plaintiff must seek relief. In addition, plaintiff cannot change the nature of this suit in his amended complaint by adding new, unrelated claims or new, unrelated defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18.

15 “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 16 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

17 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 21 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. Plaintiff must be detailed and specific about what each defendant did.

24 Finally, plaintiff has not paid the $400.00 filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, should plaintiff wish to proceed with this suit— rather than pursue a petition for habeas corpus—he shall submit the attached application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action. wOAOe 4: OU □□ VR MMO tC eT VV | ORDER 2 1. Within forty-five days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file a Second | Amended Complaint, if he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit.

4 2. Within forty-five days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an application || to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the filing fee, if he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit.

6 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

7 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form and an in forma || pauperis application.

9 5. The court’s order to show cause, ECF No. 2, is discharged.

Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. \ prssann Rae — Dated: _ July 14, 2020 13 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.