1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DEWAYNE OUTLEY, JR. Case No. 2:25-cv-1953-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Michael Dewayne Outley, Jr. (“plaintiff”) brings this section 1983 action against 18 numerous defendants associated with Stanislaus and Modesto counties, alleging that his rights 19 were violated when he was subjected to false arrest, an illegal search and seizure, and excessive 20 force by members of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department and firefighters from Modesto 21 County. ECF No. 1 at 2. These claims, however, appear to be barred by the Younger1 abstention 22 doctrine because plaintiff is still contesting relevant state criminal charges. I will dismiss the 23 complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why his claims should still proceed. I will 24 also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. 25 26 27

28 1 Younger v. Harris,

(1971). 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See

(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief.

7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force and falsely arrested after he 26 approached a Modesto fire station and attempted to lodge a grievance concerning threats that 27 firefighters had allegedly made against him. ECF No. 1 at 13-18. He appears, however, to allege 28 that this incident is the subject of ongoing state criminal charges against him. Id. at 3. Thus, it 1 appears that the Younger abstention doctrine applies. This abstention doctrine applies where: 2 “(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 3 interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the 4 state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the 5 practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger 6 disapproves.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of 7 San Jose,

(9th Cir. 2008). Here, state criminal proceedings appear to be 8 ongoing, and those proceedings implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479

, 49 (1986). Nothing appears to preclude the litigation of plaintiff’s false arrest and illegal 10 search and seizure claims in state court. The excessive force claims might not be subject to the 11 Younger bar, but it is difficult to tell without knowing exactly what plaintiff has been charged 12 with. Some charges, like resisting arrest, implicate the question of whether the force was 13 excessive and, thus abstention would be appropriate. m or by using excessive force would 14 interfere with those proceedings. See Robinson v. City of San Jose, No. 19-cv-06768-NC, 2020

, *4 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2020). Fourth, adjudicating the claims plaintiff 16 raises here requires fact-finding that might be at odds with the factual determinations in his 17 criminal case. 18 The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 19 that explains why, if at all, his claims should proceed. Any amended complaint will entirely 20 supersede the initial one and must be complete in itself. It should be titled “First Amended 21 Complaint” and be filed within thirty days of this order’s entry. 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, contained in ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 24 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 25 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 26 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 27 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 28 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 1 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 2 5. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 28, 2025 Q————. 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28