Orlando Sanchez de Tagle v. Hackeem Lee

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 ORLANDO SANCHEZ DE TAGLE, Case No. 25-cv-09008-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AMENDED 10 v. COMPLAINT; ORDER TO ISSUE AND SERVE SUMMONS Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendant. 12

13 14 On October 20, 2025, Orlando Sanchez de Tagle, who is representing himself, filed a 15 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and 16 Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 1. On November 6, 2025, the Court issued an order granting 17 Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and screening his 18 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dkt. No. 5. With respect to Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s 19 claim for invasion of privacy, to the extent the claim “is directed to the scope of the search Deputy 20 Lee conducted of Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s electronic devices,” the Court found that the complaint’s 21 allegations, liberally construed, are sufficient to meet the low threshold at the screening stage, to 22 state a Fourth Amendment claim. See Dkt. No. 6 at 5-6. However, the Court found that the 23 complaint did not state a plausible claim for false arrest and/or search and seizure without 24 probable cause. Id. at 5. Additionally, to the extent the privacy claim was based on Deputy Lee’s 25 alleged surveillance of Mr. Sanchez de Tagle at various locations, the complaint’s allegations were 26 vague and failed to state a plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 6. The Court 27 also found that the complaint did not state a cognizable claim for perjury. Id. at 6-7. Mr. Sanchez 1 After obtaining an extension of time, Mr. Sanchez de Tagle filed an amended complaint on 2 December 17, 2025. Dkt. No. 8. The amended complaint asserts two claims—one for unlawful 3 search and seizure and one for invasion of privacy. The amended complaint does not assert claims 4 for false arrest or for perjury. The Court concludes that Mr. Sanchez de Tagle has voluntarily 5 dismissed those claims from the case. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 6 2012) (en banc) (‘For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 7 require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But 8 for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”). 9 Having reviewed the amended complaint, the Court concludes that, for purposes of 28 10 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s allegations are sufficient to permit him to proceed with 11 this action without payment of the filing fee. By January 30, 2026, Mr. Sanchez de Tagle must 12 submit a proposed summons to the Clerk’s Office, including an address for service of process on 5 13 defendant Hackeem Lee. 14 Upon submission of a proper form of summons, the Clerk of the Court shall issue the 3 15 summons. The U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California shall serve, without 16 prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint and this order on the defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: January 20, 2026 19

1 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28