UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

LARRY A. CRAWFORD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00508-DCN Plaintiff, SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY v. SCREENING JUDGE

DETECTIVE BECKY WHITE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Larry A. Crawford is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

and 1915A, determined that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Initial Review Order, Dkt. 7. Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint, which names Detective Becky White as the only Defendant. See Dkt. 12. The Court retains its screening authority pursuant to

(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to remedy the deficiencies in his initial Complaint, and the Court will dismiss this case pursuant to

and 1915A. 1. Screening Requirement As explained in the Initial Review Order, the Court must dismiss a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint—or any portion thereof—that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(d)(2) & 1915A(b). 2. Pleading Standard

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). “[D]etailed

factual allegations” are not required, but a plaintiff must offer “more than ... unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].”

(internal quotation marks omitted). 3. Discussion Plaintiff brings claims under

, the civil rights statute. To state a

plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates,

(9th Cir. 1991). To be liable under § 1983, “the defendant must possess a purposeful, a knowing, or possibly a reckless state of mind.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

(2015). Negligence

is not actionable under § 1983, because a negligent act by a public official is not an abuse of governmental power but merely a “failure to measure up to the conduct of a reasonable person.” Daniels v. Williams,

(1986). The conviction for which Plaintiff is incarcerated—a 2007 conviction of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen—was based in part on statements Plaintiff made to Defendant Detective White. Plaintiff alleges that Detective White coerced him

into making the statements in violation of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Am. Compl., Dkt. 12, at 2.1 to 2.3. The Court informed Plaintiff in the Initial Review Order that such claims appeared to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994); see Dkt 7 at 7–8. It is clear from

the Amended Complaint that a favorable result in this action—that is, a finding that Detective White unconstitutionally obtained Plaintiff’s statements—would imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction. See

at 486–87. Because Plaintiff has not shown that the conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question, Heck v. Humphrey bars Plaintiff’s § 1983 action.

4. Conclusion Although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

(9th Cir. 1982). Because Plaintiff has already been given the opportunity to amend and still has failed to state a

plausible claim for relief, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint without further leave to amend. See Knapp v. Hogan,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant simply cannot state a claim.”). ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended 42 USCS § 1983 Civil Rights Action (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that the Court has screened Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 2. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Order and the Initial Review Order (Dkt. 7), this entire case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)Gi) and 1915A(b)(1). See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (stating that Heck dismissal must be without prejudice so the plaintiff “may reassert his claims if he ever succeeds in invalidating his conviction’).

aa DATED: May 18, 2020

ail ty } a “kas Chiet U8 District Court Judge

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4