Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of California

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 22, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-06656·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

6 7 KENDALL DEJUAN SIMON, Case No. 2:21-cv-6656-VAP (MAR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 11 Defendant. 12

13 I. 14 INTRODUCTION 15 On August 7, 2021, Kendall Dejuan Simon (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, 16 constructively filed1 a Complaint (“Complaint”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. 17 Plaintiff also filed a Request to Proceed to In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. 2, which 18 the Court instructed Plaintiff to amend. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff submitted a new Request to 19 Proceed IFP, Dkt. 9, which appears to suffer from the same deficiencies as his first 20 IFP Request. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s second 21 IFP Request dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 If Plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to respond by 23 no later than January 10, 2022, by choosing one of the three (3) options 24 discussed in Part V, below. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, 25 he must also file a new Request to Proceed IFP. Further, Plaintiff is admonished 26 27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. 1 that, if he fails to timely respond, the Court will recommend that this action be 2 dismissed without further leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to state a 3 claim and follow the Court’s orders. 4 II. 5 SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT 6 A. ALLEGATIONS 7 The Complaint lists a single defendant, State of California, and includes two 8 causes of action that appear to lump together several claims: (1) “kidnapping in the 9 form of an arrest – the rights to basic freedoms – double jeopardy” and (2) “Double 10 Jeopardy – false 911 report – stalking[.]” Dkt. 1 at 1, 3, 8. In the form Complaint, 11 Plaintiff also checks four (4) boxes identifying four (4) additional issues involved: (1) 12 disciplinary proceedings, (2) threat to safety, (3) access to the court, and (4) retaliation. 13 Dkt. 1 at 3. 14 Plaintiff lists the following supporting facts in support of his first cause of 15 action: 16 (a) Plaintiff was kidnapped by two (2) officers reeking of marijuana and liquor 17 in the form of an arrest; 18 (b) Plaintiff was stalked by two (2) males who got the 911 operator to issue a 19 warrant “out of [sic] air with no evidence or proof of crime; 20 (c) “Double jeopardy – charged with same crime twice in same area (Case # 21 ZM048107)”; 22 (d) “Foul play on arrest”; and 23 (e) “Didn’t tell truth on police report[.]” 24 Dkt. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that he has “been institutionalized, forced to fight” and 25 received “no medical attention for back injury in jail while innocent of charges.” Id. 26 Plaintiff explains that the events underlying the first cause of action as follows: [A]ll started about 4 years ago when [Plaintiff] first made [his] way 27 to Beverly Hills Blvd . . . [Plaintiff] was taken to jail from Beverly Hills threats 1 vandalism . . . [Plaintiff] was then released to the custody of a 1 physciatric [sic] clinic that in return released [Plaintiff] from custody after 2 2 [illegible] days, then [Plaintiff] mistakenly returned to the shopping center to walk to [Plaintiff’s] second bus to get [illegible] to home. When 3 [Plaintiff] walked past the coffee & TSA spa they came running out the 4 door to follow [Plaintiff].[2] . . . They then followed [Plaintiff] to the elevator and established verably [sic] that they were armed with a knife 5 and small caliber hand gun they never pull them out so for feet [sic] 6 [Plaintiff] cant say they had a firearm but [Plaintiff] did see the knife so [Plaintiff] took off walking away from their [illegible]. [Plaintiff] speed 7 walked to the grocery store to find safety [Plaintiff] was afraid for 8 [Plaintiff’s] life and the two males then stalked [Plaintiff] all the way to the grocery store . . . After [Plaintiff] got there the security guard approached 9 [Plaintiff] to ask what’s wrong [Plaintiff] hold him there were two males 10 following [Plaintiff] with gun and knife. He informed [Plaintiff] that this type of thing happens everyday [illegible] guys stalking handsome men 11 [sic] violations. He told [Plaintiff] to walk to a restaurant and walk in and 12 they would stop following [Plaintiff]. During this entire ordeal they were on the phone with 911 fabricating an emergency to get a warrant issued 13 with no evidence . . . [W]ell two officers pulled up and detained [Plaintiff] 14 for having scissors then found no scissors then changed there [sic] story to warrant for arrest . . . Then the two males [illegible]. [Plaintiff[ had just 15 got released on and called 911 and got them to charge [Plaintiff] with the 16 exact same crimes or criminal charges that [Plaintiff] was released on . . . Again for a second time[.] They arrested [Plaintiff] and put [Plaintiff] in a 17 marijuana reeking squad [illegible] SUV. . . [Plaintiff] was then arrested for 18 3 agg assaults 3 criminal threats and 1 vandalism the exact same charges [Plaintiff] had just been released on. 19 Dkt. 1 at 4-7. 20 As to the second cause of action, “Double Jeopardy – false 911 report – 21 stalking,” Plaintiff alleges: 22 (a) Plaintiff “was stalked by both 2 males on [Plaintiff’s] police report”; 23 (b) “Police Report reads no Miranda rights no evidence” 24 (c) “It is an illegal act to arrest with no evidence. No Miranda rights on police 25 report.” 26

27 2 Plaintiff further alleges that the footage from the day of Plaintiff’s arrest will show that Plaintiff 1 Dkt. 1 at 8. Plaintiff also explains that he has suffered “mental anguish and 4 years of 2 mental treatment do [sic] to incarceration. Night tremors. Forced to fight for 3 survival.” Id. 4 B. RELIEF SOUGHT 5 Plaintiff is “seeking [Plaintiff’s] freedom and the basic reimbursement for time 6 lost in jail while innocent[.]” Dkt. 1 at 9. In addition, Plaintiff seeks “[r]elief for time 7 served while innocent with trial by judge as proof of innocence.” Id. 8 III. 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW 10 Where a plaintiff is incarcerated3 a court must screen the complaint under 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the 12 action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 13 or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A; see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 15 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on either a lack of 16 a cognizable legal theory or the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal 17 theory. See, e.g., Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th 18 Cir. 2008). A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 19 discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. 20 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other 21 grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Although the plaintiff must 22 provide “more than labels and conclusions,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of California (Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A.
550 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Hamilton v. Brown
630 F.3d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp
745 F.2d 1221 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Jesus Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino
116 F.3d 379 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Department
530 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Mendiondo v. Centinela Hospital Medical Center
521 F.3d 1097 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
In Re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation
536 F.3d 1049 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)