1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TITA NYAMBI, Case No. 25-cv-03774-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND
10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Humboldt County Jail who is proceeding without representation 14 by an attorney, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Humboldt 15 County Sherriff’s Department, the “Humboldt County Correctional Facility,” and the Humboldt 16 County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a 17 separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 22 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 24 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 25 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 1 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 2 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to state 3 a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 4 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 5 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 6 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 8 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 9 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 10 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 12 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 13 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 14 42, 48 (1988). 15 LEGAL CLAIMS 16 Plaintiff alleges “[a]s previously indicated,”1 he was “denied proper medical assistance” in 17 jail by employees of Defendant Humboldt County Sherriff’s Department (“HCSD”). (ECF No. 1 18 at 2.) He alleges that when he was not in jail, HCSD deputies “subjected” him to “abuse” and to “unreasonable and inordinate amounts of harassment, retribution, threats, harmful actions, and 19 malicious prosecutions.” (Id.) He alleges these actions have “prevent[ed]” him from “seeking 20 justice criminally or civilly” and have “distort[ed]” his “character.” (Id. at 2-3.) He alleges HCSD 21 and “EPD” officials have “frequently” arrested him for sleeping in his car “while others are left 22 alone,” and they have also impounded his car “so many times,” resulting in towing and storage 23 fees. (Id. at 3.) He alleges the Humboldt County Superior Court has “failed to investigate” 24 incidents in which he was assaulted, or “bring any [related] charges” related to such incidents. 25
26 1 Plaintiff previously filed a civil rights action making similar allegations to those he makes here. See Nyambi v. Humboldt County Sherriff’s Department, et al., No. C 22-5212 JSC (PR) (ECF No. 27 1). The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the case was subsequently dismissed 1 (Id.) He also complains the Public Defender’s Office has failed to advocate for, and the Superior 2 Court has failed to order, a “pretrial diversion” based upon his mental health problems. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff may not proceed with his claims against the Humboldt County Superior Court for 4 failing to investigate and charge crimes committed against him. First, state courts are not 5 responsible for investigating or charging crimes. Second, the superior courts in California have 6 “sovereign” immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from all claims for damages. Munoz v. 7 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 8 claims against the Humboldt County Superior Court are not capable of judicial determination and review and will be dismissed without leave to amend. 9 The other Defendants ---- the “Humboldt County Detention Facility” and the HCSD ---- 10 are not independent entities but rather are a facility and an agency run by Humboldt County. 11 Humboldt County is local government entity subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when 12 official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 13 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Such entities may not be held vicariously liable, however, simply on 14 the theory that they are responsible for their employees’ actions. Id. at 691. To establish liability, 15 a plaintiff must show: “(1) that he possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was 16 deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate 17 indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force 18 behind the constitutional violation.” Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 19 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Plaintiff has not alleged facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim that he 21 was deprived of a constitutional right. First, his claim of inadequate medical care is conclusory 22 because he does not allege the medical condition he has or the treatments he did or did not receive. 23 Second, the complaint is also not clear as to what the alleged “abuse,” “harassment, retribution, 24 harmful actions, and malicious prosecutions” involved. To the extent these allegations are based 25 on his arrests for sleeping in his car, and/or the towing, impounding, and related fees, Plaintiff has 26 not alleged facts that plausibly establish these actions were unconstitutional. The Fourth 27 Amendment requires that an arrest be supported by probable cause, Atwater v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TITA NYAMBI, Case No. 25-cv-03774-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND
10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Humboldt County Jail who is proceeding without representation 14 by an attorney, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Humboldt 15 County Sherriff’s Department, the “Humboldt County Correctional Facility,” and the Humboldt 16 County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a 17 separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 22 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 24 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 25 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 1 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 2 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to state 3 a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 4 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 5 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 6 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 8 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 9 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 10 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 12 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 13 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 14 42, 48 (1988). 15 LEGAL CLAIMS 16 Plaintiff alleges “[a]s previously indicated,”1 he was “denied proper medical assistance” in 17 jail by employees of Defendant Humboldt County Sherriff’s Department (“HCSD”). (ECF No. 1 18 at 2.) He alleges that when he was not in jail, HCSD deputies “subjected” him to “abuse” and to “unreasonable and inordinate amounts of harassment, retribution, threats, harmful actions, and 19 malicious prosecutions.” (Id.) He alleges these actions have “prevent[ed]” him from “seeking 20 justice criminally or civilly” and have “distort[ed]” his “character.” (Id. at 2-3.) He alleges HCSD 21 and “EPD” officials have “frequently” arrested him for sleeping in his car “while others are left 22 alone,” and they have also impounded his car “so many times,” resulting in towing and storage 23 fees. (Id. at 3.) He alleges the Humboldt County Superior Court has “failed to investigate” 24 incidents in which he was assaulted, or “bring any [related] charges” related to such incidents. 25
26 1 Plaintiff previously filed a civil rights action making similar allegations to those he makes here. See Nyambi v. Humboldt County Sherriff’s Department, et al., No. C 22-5212 JSC (PR) (ECF No. 27 1). The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the case was subsequently dismissed 1 (Id.) He also complains the Public Defender’s Office has failed to advocate for, and the Superior 2 Court has failed to order, a “pretrial diversion” based upon his mental health problems. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff may not proceed with his claims against the Humboldt County Superior Court for 4 failing to investigate and charge crimes committed against him. First, state courts are not 5 responsible for investigating or charging crimes. Second, the superior courts in California have 6 “sovereign” immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from all claims for damages. Munoz v. 7 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 8 claims against the Humboldt County Superior Court are not capable of judicial determination and review and will be dismissed without leave to amend. 9 The other Defendants ---- the “Humboldt County Detention Facility” and the HCSD ---- 10 are not independent entities but rather are a facility and an agency run by Humboldt County. 11 Humboldt County is local government entity subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when 12 official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 13 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Such entities may not be held vicariously liable, however, simply on 14 the theory that they are responsible for their employees’ actions. Id. at 691. To establish liability, 15 a plaintiff must show: “(1) that he possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was 16 deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate 17 indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force 18 behind the constitutional violation.” Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 19 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Plaintiff has not alleged facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim that he 21 was deprived of a constitutional right. First, his claim of inadequate medical care is conclusory 22 because he does not allege the medical condition he has or the treatments he did or did not receive. 23 Second, the complaint is also not clear as to what the alleged “abuse,” “harassment, retribution, 24 harmful actions, and malicious prosecutions” involved. To the extent these allegations are based 25 on his arrests for sleeping in his car, and/or the towing, impounding, and related fees, Plaintiff has 26 not alleged facts that plausibly establish these actions were unconstitutional. The Fourth 27 Amendment requires that an arrest be supported by probable cause, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 1 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001), and Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting a reasonable inference his 2 arrests for sleeping in his car lacked probable cause. Third, the bare allegation that others who 3 also slept in their car were not arrested is not sufficient to state a plausible equal protection claim. 4 The Equal Protection Clause requires “that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” 5 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Plaintiff does not allege 6 any facts regarding the circumstances of others who slept in their car but were not arrested, such as 7 whether they were sleeping in their cars illegally or in the same location as Plaintiff. Without such 8 allegations, the complaint does not support a reasonable inference that people who were not arrested were similarly situated to him. Lastly, Plaintiff has not alleged what “threats” he received 9 or from whom. 10 Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint in which he cures the above 11 deficiencies in his claims by alleging facts that support a reasonable inference of a plausible 12 constitutional violation. In his amended complaint, he may name the individuals involved in any 13 alleged violation as Defendants. He is reminded that if he wishes to also name as Defendants any 14 municipality that employed such individuals, such as Humboldt County, he must allege the 15 municipality had a policy or practice that was the moving force behind the violation of his rights. 16 CONCLUSION 17 1. The claims against Humboldt County Superior Court are DIMISSED without leave to 18 amend. The claims against the other Defendants are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as 19 to certain claims, as described above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before 20 September 5, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used 21 in this order (No. C 25-3774 (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED 22 COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original 23 complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not 24 incorporate material from the original by reference; he must include in his amended complaint all 25 the claims he wishes to pursue. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the 26 designated time, or if the amendment is not sufficient, all the claims may be dismissed. 27 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 1 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 2 || Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion, although 3 he may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it 4 || is filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 5 of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: August 4, 2025 8 9 net JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 10 United States District Judge 11 12
«44
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28