1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD BERNHARD GRAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00410-HBK 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. JUNE 16, 2025 DEADLINE 14 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff commenced this action on April 9, 2025, by filing a form “Complaint for Civil 18 Case.” (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently before the Court for screening pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, the Court finds the Complaint does not set forth a 21 basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and otherwise fails to state a cognizable claim for 22 relief. The Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint before 23 recommending this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD 25 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 26 time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim 27 on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 28 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 (9th 1 Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in form pauperis). A complaint, 2 however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 3 set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. Knowles, 4 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint must include a 5 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same standard as 7 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193, 8 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim 9 to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint 10 is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the 11 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the court accepts the facts 12 stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The 13 Court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unreasonable inferences, or 14 unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 15 Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 16 Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint in the 17 light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt 18 v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the allegation 19 of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 20 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. 21 Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the Court to 22 advise a litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role 23 as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d 24 at 1131 n.13. 25 SUMMARY OF OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 26 Plaintiff names Fresno Police Department as sole defendant in his Complaint. (Doc. No. 1 27 at 1-2). Under the “Basis of Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint, Plaintiff checks “Federal 28 question.” (Id. at 3). Under the section of the form where Plaintiff is directed to provide 1 “specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution” as 2 the basis of Federal Question Jurisdiction, he states “my complaints were never investigated, and 3 ignored.” (Id. at 4, unedited). Plaintiff states the amount in controversy is $45,000,000. (Id. at 5). 4 Due to its brevity, the Court cites in full Plaintiff’s statement of claim: 5 My phone calls that were made were never had a response [illegible]. An investigation was never done. And officers were focused on 6 setting me up to receive third striker. 7 (Id. at 5, unedited). Under the relief section, Plaintiff includes: “The person who I was calling 8 about was throwing rocks at my house and my truck, resulting in damage to the stucco siding of 9 my home. Front grille stolen from truck.” (Id. at 6, unedited). From what the Court can discern, 10 liberally construed, the Complaint appears to seek monetary damages for the Defendant’s alleged 11 failure to investigate his complaints of vandalism and stolen property. 12 DISCUSSION 13 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 14 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 15 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 16 waivable matter and may be raised at any time by one of the parties, by motion or in the 17 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 18 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter 19 jurisdiction, and a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is 20 proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The “presence or 21 absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which 22 provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 23 the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987). If 24 a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 12(h)(3). 26 A federal question is presented in an action when the claim “aris[es] under the 27 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The presence or absence 28 of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides 1 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 2 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. See Gully v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD BERNHARD GRAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00410-HBK 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. JUNE 16, 2025 DEADLINE 14 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff commenced this action on April 9, 2025, by filing a form “Complaint for Civil 18 Case.” (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently before the Court for screening pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, the Court finds the Complaint does not set forth a 21 basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and otherwise fails to state a cognizable claim for 22 relief. The Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint before 23 recommending this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD 25 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 26 time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim 27 on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 28 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 (9th 1 Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in form pauperis). A complaint, 2 however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 3 set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. Knowles, 4 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint must include a 5 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same standard as 7 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193, 8 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim 9 to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint 10 is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the 11 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the court accepts the facts 12 stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The 13 Court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unreasonable inferences, or 14 unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 15 Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 16 Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint in the 17 light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt 18 v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the allegation 19 of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 20 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. 21 Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the Court to 22 advise a litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role 23 as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d 24 at 1131 n.13. 25 SUMMARY OF OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 26 Plaintiff names Fresno Police Department as sole defendant in his Complaint. (Doc. No. 1 27 at 1-2). Under the “Basis of Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint, Plaintiff checks “Federal 28 question.” (Id. at 3). Under the section of the form where Plaintiff is directed to provide 1 “specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution” as 2 the basis of Federal Question Jurisdiction, he states “my complaints were never investigated, and 3 ignored.” (Id. at 4, unedited). Plaintiff states the amount in controversy is $45,000,000. (Id. at 5). 4 Due to its brevity, the Court cites in full Plaintiff’s statement of claim: 5 My phone calls that were made were never had a response [illegible]. An investigation was never done. And officers were focused on 6 setting me up to receive third striker. 7 (Id. at 5, unedited). Under the relief section, Plaintiff includes: “The person who I was calling 8 about was throwing rocks at my house and my truck, resulting in damage to the stucco siding of 9 my home. Front grille stolen from truck.” (Id. at 6, unedited). From what the Court can discern, 10 liberally construed, the Complaint appears to seek monetary damages for the Defendant’s alleged 11 failure to investigate his complaints of vandalism and stolen property. 12 DISCUSSION 13 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 14 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 15 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 16 waivable matter and may be raised at any time by one of the parties, by motion or in the 17 responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & 18 Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter 19 jurisdiction, and a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction is 20 proper. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The “presence or 21 absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which 22 provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 23 the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987). If 24 a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 12(h)(3). 26 A federal question is presented in an action when the claim “aris[es] under the 27 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The presence or absence 28 of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides 1 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 2 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. See Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112–113 3 (1936). 4 Liberally construed, the Complaint suggests that Plaintiff may have been the victim of 5 property damage and theft, and that Defendant failed to investigate or prevent these crimes. No 6 matter how liberally construed, the Court cannot independently discern from the face of the 7 Complaint what federal question is presented. Not every action, undertaken or not undertaken, by 8 police give rise to a constitutional violation. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not adequately allege 9 a custom or policy by the Fresno Police Department, the sole name defendant, or otherwise 10 implicate the United States Constitution or any federal statutes. See Conachen v. Boundary Cnty. 11 Sheriff's Dep’t, 2011 WL 1655566, at *17 (D. Idaho Apr. 29, 2011) (Generally, “[s]tate officials 12 have no constitutional duty to protect the public from crime” nor do “police officers [ ] have an 13 affirmative duty to investigate crimes in a particular manner.” (first citing DeShaney v. 14 Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989); then citing Balistreri v. Pacifica 15 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699–700 (9th Cir. 1988); and then citing Gini v. Las Vegas Metro., 16 Police Dep’t., 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1994))). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a 17 claim for tort under state law, he must pursue that claim in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 18 Further, criminal statutes do not provide basis for civil lawsuits. See, e.g., Allen v. Gold Country 19 Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims because 20 “criminal statutes that do not give rise to civil liability”). Thus, the undersigned finds no federal 21 question for jurisdiction. 22 Because the Complaint fails to establish any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, 23 the Court lacks authority to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims but will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to 24 file an amended complaint if he can cure this defect. In addition to failing to provide a basis for 25 subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide a plain statement of his claims, 26 fails to allege a causal connection between Defendant and any act of wrongdoing. In preparing an 27 amended complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff of some basis procedural and legal tenets. 28 //// 1 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 3 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 4 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 5 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 6 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 9 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 10 C. State Actor 11 Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by 12 federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). “To 13 establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the 14 Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a 15 person acting under color of state law.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 16 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003)); Soo Park v. 17 Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). An individual defendant is not liable on civil 18 rights claim unless the facts establish either the defendant’s personal involvement in the 19 constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and 20 the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); 21 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 22 City or county governments, including departments within them such as the police or 23 sheriff's departments, cannot be held liable under section 1983 for the acts of an employee. 24 Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). To state a section 25 1983 claim against the City or County as a whole, plaintiff would have to allege that a department 26 policy or custom caused his injuries. Hyun Ju Park v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 952 F.3d 1136, 27 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION AND OPTIONS 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, fails to comply 3 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief 4 may be granted. To continue the prosecution of this action, Plaintiff must take one of the 5 following three options no later than June 16, 2025. 6 First Option: Because the Court cannot determine that the filing of an amended 7 complaint cannot cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will afford Plaintiff an 8 opportunity to file an amended complaint if he chooses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 9 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). An amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the 10 original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be free-standing and complete. Lacey 11 v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. 12 Each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended 13 complaint should title “First Amended Complaint,” include the above case number, and be an 14 original signed and dated under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 15 suit or adding unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 16 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 17 Second Option: Plaintiff may file a Notice stating he intends to stand on his current 18 Complaint subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss the Complaint for 19 the reasons stated in this Order. 20 Third Option: Because no defendant has yet been served, Plaintiff may file a Notice of 21 Voluntarily Dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The 22 Court will then dismiss this case without prejudice as a matter of law. 23 Alternatively, if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e., fails to perform 24 any of the three options, the undersigned will instead recommend that the district court dismiss 25 this case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order under Local Rule 110 26 and/or for failing to prosecute this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. No later than June 16, 2025, Plaintiff shall take one of the following actions: (a) 3 | file a First Amended Complaint; (b); file a Notice that he intends to stand on the Complaint as 4 | screened subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss the Complaint for 5 | the reasons stated in this Order; (c) file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 6 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of 7 | time to comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff's 8 | failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action. 9 3. The Clerk of Court shall include a blank non-prisoner civil rights complaint form 10 | for Plaintiffs use as appropriate. 11 '? | Dated: _ May 15,2025 Wile. □□□ foareh Zack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28