1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No. 23-cv-02544-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 9 v. PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

10 DAVID BAUGMAN, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 12, 14 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at California State Prison – Sacramento, has filed this pro se 14 civil rights case under

. His amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is now before the 15 Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard of Review 18 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 21 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 23 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi,

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 27 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 1 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 2 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 677–78 (2009). 3 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 4 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice.

5 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 6 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 7 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 8 Atkins,

(1988). 9 B. Amended Complaint 10 The amended complaint again names as defendant three Santa Clara County officials: 11 public defender Michelle Vasquez, prosecutor Patrick Vanier, and Judge Kenneth Shapero.1 The 12 amended complaint is difficult to understand. It appears to challenge the conviction and sentence 13 pursuant to which Plaintiff is in custody. The amended complaint alleges that defendant Vasquez 14 gave Plaintiff “bad” or incorrect legal advice and that she committed “indifference” in reading out 15 the witness statement of Cicia Liliana Ojeda; that Plaintiff was falsely charged and that defendant 16 Vanier was responsible for this false charge; that defendant Vanier knew that Plaintiff had not 17 committed any “use of force,” “invent[ed]” that witness Ojeda had been injured,” and knew that 18 witness Ojeda was lying; that Plaintiff was defamed by the false charge; that Plaintiff was charged 19 twice for the same action; that defendant Shapero “commit[ed] contempt, disrespect,” and denied 20 Plaintiff a fair trial when he denied Plaintiff’s requests; that Defendants conspired to deny Plaintiff 21 a fair trial and took advantage of Plaintiff, knowing that he was illiterate, did not understand court 22 rules or law, and did not speak English. Plaintiff requests that he either be released from prison or 23 granted a new trial. Plaintiff also requests that if it is determined that Defendants acted improperly 24 or illegally, that he be awarded monetary compensation. See generally ECF No. 13. 25 / / / 26

27 1 The amended complaint also names Warden David Baugman as a defendant in the caption, but 1 C. Dismissal 2 Plaintiff is challenging the validity of his conviction and confinement. Challenges to a 3 |} conviction must be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not in a civil rights action 4 pursuant to

. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (habeas is 5 “exclusive remedy” for prisoner who seeks “immediate or speedier release’” from confinement) 6 (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005)); see also Hill v. McDonough,

, 7 579 (2006) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement. . . are the province of habeas 8 corpus.””) (quoting Muhammad vy. Close,

(2004)). This action is therefore 9 DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff raising his challenges to the validity of his conviction 10 || ina petition for a writ of habeas corpus should he so choose. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice to Plaintiff 13 raising his challenges to the validity of his conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 14 || The Clerk shall send Plaintiff two copies of the form petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 3 15 terminate all pending motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against a 16 || Plaintiff, and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: July 28, 2023 . 19 JON S. TIGA 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28