Analia Martinez v. McKinleyville School District, et al.

Opinion

ANALIA MARTINEZ, Case No. 25-cv-07982-RMI Plaintiff, MANDATORY SCREENING v. ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 USC 1915 et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Martinez, proceeding pro se, brings this action seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against at least 18 named Defendants: McKinleyville School District, Julie Giannini-Previde, Jeff Brock, Gretchn Whitmer, Vincent Weldon, Yasmin Reyes, Tiffany Maher, Jasmine Palacio, Elizabeth Rivera, Alvin Sager, Keri Lockard, Tomas Chavez, Travis Fleming, Devin Furrow, Tracy Helard, Laura Holdt, Nicole Alvarado, Nicholas Som, and DOES 1-50, inclusive. See Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 1-4. The court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, (dkt. 4) and now considers whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be amended or dismissed pursuant to the requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint may fail to state a claim if it violates the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules requires “a short and plain statement of the claim” and that “each allegation” in the complaint “be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1). When a plaintiff sues multiple defendants, the complaint “must allege the requires a short and plain statement of the claim to put defendants on sufficient notice of the allegations against them.” Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F.Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988); see also Dougherty v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1253 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (same). Here, while Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges six causes of action against at least 18 discrete Defendants, she does not specify “which allegations are relevant to which defendants.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). For example, aside from noting that Yasmin Reyes was employed “during the 2023-2024 school year as a second-grade teacher and is sued in both individual and official capacities”, Plaintiff alleges no further facts about this teacher. Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 1-3. Similarly, while Tiffany Maher, Vincent Weldon, Deven Furrow, Nicholas Som are named defendants, there are no allegations made against them. Id. at 1-4. In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains multiple seemingly bizarre and unrelated assertions that are not linked to specific defendants. See, e.g. id. at 5 (alleging that Plaintiff was arrested for “‘taking pictures of naked kids’” on a school campus and that a 7.0 earthquake occurred in December 2024). These assertions concern the court that Plaintiff’s claims may also be frivolous or simply fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In any event, as pleaded, Plaintiff’s Complaint does “not afford defendants a fair opportunity” to defend themselves and does not satisfy the Rule 8 pleading requirements. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1175. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. However, because this is Plaintiff’s first attempt, the court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is reminded that any amended complaint should state a “short and plain” claim for relief, and that her allegations should be “simple, direct, and concise.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a), 8(d)(1). Plaintiff is also reminded that the amended complaint must provide defendants notice of what legal claims are asserted against which defendants. McHenry, 84 F.3d 1172 at 1175-76. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to timely file an amended complaint the undersigned will 2 Dated: October 14, 2025

4 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28