Hogan v. Napa County District Attorney

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-04052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TAMBRA HOGAN, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04052-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915

10 NAPA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Re: Dkt. No. 1 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. 14 No. 5.)1 It must now review the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because 15 Plaintiffs’ claims do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court gives Plaintiffs 16 the opportunity to amend the complaint. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 Tambra Hogan and Keith Rivers allege that, after a September 2021 altercation with Victor 19 Ramon Fregoso,2 Defendants have failed to pursue justice against Mr. Fregoso, failed to treat 20 Plaintiffs as victims, and discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race. (Dkt. No. 1.) 21 Plaintiffs cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Art. I § 7 of the California 22 Constitution, and a list of federal and state statutes. (Id. at 5.) They also describe violations of 23 Marsy’s Law, negligence, intimidation, abuse of power, intentional infliction of pain, mental 24 distress, pain and suffering, retaliation, and prosecutorial misconduct. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) 25 They name as Defendants the Napa County District Attorney; County of Napa; District 26

27 1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 1 Attorney Jennifer Allison Haley, Veronica Vo, and Shashawnya Janice Worley; Napa County 2 Courts; Public Defender Douglas Corby Skelton; CEO of Napa Minh Tran; Napa County 3 Supervisor Belia Ramos; American Canyon Mayor Leon Garcia; American Canyon Vice Mayor 4 Mariam Aboudamous; American Canyon Police Department Chief Rick Greenberg; District 5 Attorney Victim Advocate Irma Luna; and Risk Manager Kerry John Whitney. 6 A related case brought by Mr. Rivers is proceeding against American Canyon Police 7 Department Sergeant Jeff Scott and Officer Wagoner. (Case No. 22-cv-01576-JSC, Dkt. No. 10.) 8 The only live claim is a Section 1983 equal protection claim related to Mr. Rivers’ arrest on 9 November 5, 2021. (Id. at 3–5.) 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 12 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 15 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege facts that plausibly 16 establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). 17 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 18 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 20 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 21 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 22 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 23 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in 24 pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 25 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 26 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 27 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s 1 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. 2 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Plaintiffs are proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must 4 construe the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may 5 not add to the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th 6 Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local 7 Rules of this District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). 8 DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiffs’ complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not allege enough facts, 10 in enough detail, to give Defendants fair notice of the basis for their claims. The complaint refers 11 to an interaction with Mr. Fregoso and related actions by Defendants, but it does not explain with 12 specificity why Plaintiffs believe the actions were unlawful or which particular Defendants 13 violated Plaintiffs’ rights with each action. The complaint must set forth specific factual 14 allegations that, if assumed true, would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that each 15 Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 16 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Napa County District Attorney and District 17 Attorneys Ms. Haley, Ms. Vo, and Ms. Worley may be barred by absolute immunity. Prosecutors 18 have “absolute immunity from damages liability for actions intimately associated with the judicial 19 phase of the criminal process, such as the prosecutor’s initiation of a prosecution and presentation 20 of the state’s case.” Torres v. Goddard, 793 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The 21 immunity applies when the prosecutor is “performing the traditional functions of an advocate.” Id. 22 (cleaned up). Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations about Ms. Worley’s statements in court and Ms. 23 Haley and Ms. Vo’s decision to drop felony charges against Mr. Fregoso, which are related to 24 their prosecutorial functions, the claims against them may be barred. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ claims are not sufficiently alleged under 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915. If Plaintiffs believe they may cure the deficiencies, or at least some of the 1 cannot refer to prior pleadings to make an amended complaint complete. Thus, Plaintiffs’ 2 amended complaint must be complete in itself because it replaces the previously filed complaint. 3 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 The Court encourages Plaintiffs to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal 5 Help Center; they should make a telephone appointment by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing 6 || fedpro@sfbar.org. Finally, Plaintiffs are warned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or any court order could result in dismissal of their complaint. 8 || Similarly, failure to file an amended complaint that cures the above-identified deficiencies could 9 || also lead to dismissal of their complaint. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 24, 2022 ol) 4 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States District Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28