Dorado v. Stephan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANIEL DORADO, Case No.: 25cv0083-WQH (SBC) CDCR #BN-7728, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM SUMMER STEPHAN, San Diego District 14 AND FOR FAILURE TO Attorney; JESSICA COTO, Deputy San PROSECUTE 15 Diego District Attorney; KATHERINE CRUMB, San Diego Police Detective; 16 NANCY KARMELECH, Accuser; and 17 CHARLES ROGERS, Superior Court Judge, 18 Defendants. 19 20 HAYES, Judge: 21 On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff Daniel Dorado, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 22 a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accompanied by a Motion to Proceed 23 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants San Diego 24 County District Attorney Summer Stephan, San Diego County Deputy District Attorney 25 Jessica Coto, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Charles Rogers, San Diego Police 26 Detective Katherine Crumb, and Nancy Karmelech, an “accuser,” were all involved in his 27 San Diego County Superior Court criminal prosecution which resulted in his December 28 2019 conviction for raping four women. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3; ECF No. 1-26 at 25.) On 1 February 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and screened the 2 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), which require sua sponte 3 dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, 4 fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. (ECF No. 7.) 5 The Court found the claims for damages against Defendant Judge Rogers are barred by the 6 doctrine of judicial immunity, the claims for damages against Defendants District Attorney 7 Stephan and Deputy District Attorney Coto are barred by the doctrine of quasi-judicial 8 immunity, and Defendant Karmelech, a private citizen who testified against Plaintiff, was 9 not acting under color of state law. (Id. at 5-7.) The Court found Plaintiff had failed to 10 state a damages claim against the remaining Defendant Detective Crumb, and did not state 11 a § 1983 claim for equitable relief against any Defendant, because to the extent success on 12 his claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his confinement or its duration, 13 he had not shown his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged 14 by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 15 determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 16 corpus, and to the extent Plaintiff sought to raise claims unrelated to his conviction he had 17 presented conclusory allegations. (Id. at 7-9.) 18 Although it appeared unlikely Plaintiff would be able to amend his Complaint to 19 state a claim, because he is proceeding pro se, the Court granted an opportunity to amend 20 on or before April 11, 2025. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff was also informed that if he failed to 21 file an amended complaint within the time provided, or voluntarily dismissed his 22 Complaint, the Court would enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on 23 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1), and failure to prosecute in compliance with a court 25 order requiring amendment. (Id. at 10-11 (quoting Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 26 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 27 complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 28 entire action.”)).) On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an extension of time to file an 2 ||amended complaint, indicating that he is currently challenging certain aspects of his 3 conviction in state court but thinks it unlikely he will succeed in having his conviction 4 ||invalidated by the time his amended complaint is due in this action. (ECF No. 9 at 1-2.) 5 || Plaintiff requested either an extension of time to amend to include additional claims 6 || relating to his conviction, which he admitted would be “senseless” since he needs time to 7 invalidate his conviction through state and federal habeas actions before proceeding with 8 || his claims here, or advice on how to “get around” the April 11, 2025, amendment deadline 9 this case. (/d.) 10 On April 1, 2025, the Court denied the motion for an extension of time, finding that, 11 |/irrespective of whether a stay is available in this case, it is clear Plaintiff has not stated a 12 || claim which would survive mandatory dismissal on screening even were he to succeed in 13 |/invalidating his conviction. (ECF No. 10 at 3.) Plaintiff was once again notified that if he 14 || failed to file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, or voluntarily dismissed his 15 Complaint, the Court would enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on 16 || Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 || §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)a1) & 1915A(b)(1), and failure to prosecute in compliance with a court 18 order requiring amendment. (/d. at 4 (citing Lira, 427 F.3d at 1169).) 19 As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he 20 || contacted the Court. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for 21 ||failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) & 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall 23 || enter final judgment accordingly and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 14, 2025 Nitta Ze. Ma 26 Hon, William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 28 3 ce