Perez v. State of California

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 30, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02926
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SILVIA A. BRANDON PEREZ, Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION, 8 v. COMPLAINT AND INJUNCTION REQUEST 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 7 Defendants. 10

11 Pro se plaintiff Siliva Brandon Perez filed a first amended complaint alleging federal and 12 state law claims for government corruption, racism, hate crimes, incitement to violence, and 13 emotional distress. Dkt. No. 4. The claims are brought against an array of California state and 14 Alameda County entities, and several neighbors. Perez submitted an application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis (“IFP”) in conjunction with her lawsuit. Dkt. No. 2. She also recently filed an ex 16 parte “emergency injunction” that largely repeats, in summary form, the allegations in the 17 amended complaint. Dkt. No. 7. 18 The IFP application is denied and the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. In 19 determining whether IFP status should be granted, the Court may dismiss a complaint that fails to 20 state a claim on which relief may be granted, among other grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 22 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). While the Court liberally construes pro se lawsuits such as 23 this one, a pro se plaintiff must still state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. Nguyen 24 Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-CV-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 25 Aug. 27, 2015). 26 Even if given every benefit of the doubt, the amended complaint does not allege facts that 27 plausibly state a federal claim. The complaint is a rambling narrative that never coalesces into 1 specific factual allegations tied to a cause of action. Perez says that she is “an ordained female 2 || priest according to the rites of the Catholic Church,” and has experienced harassment, 3 discrimination and other conduct based on her gender, age, race, and religion. Dkt. No. 4 {fj 13, 4 || 29, 37. But these allegations are entirely conclusory, and the complaint does not allege any facts 5 || in support of them. The most the Court can determine is that Perez has had building code and 6 || permitting disputes with various government entities related to a residential property in Alameda 7 County. There also appear to be tensions between Perez and the neighbors about the use of the 8 || property. While the amended complaint describes a number of interactions that Perez found 9 || uncivil and upsetting, it never states facts plausibly alleging that any defendant violated a federal 10 civil rights, discrimination or other law vis-a-vis Perez. 11 Consequently, IFP status is not warranted and the federal claims are dismissed with leave 12 || to amend. Because the federal claims were the ostensible basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, it g 13 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 14 The request for an injunction is denied for the same reasons. In the absence of a plausible 3 15 claim, Perez cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, or that she has raised a serious a 16 || question, that would warrant the extraordinary relief of an injunction. Airbnb, Inc., v. City and 3 17 County of San Francisco, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1071-72 (N.D. Cal. 2016). The injunction 18 || request also does not identify a plausible and likely threat of irreparable harm. /d. at 1072. 19 If Perez would like to file a second amended complaint that responds to the concerns stated 20 || in this order, she must file a revised complaint by November 18, 2019. Failure to meet that 21 deadline will result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Perez may not file any other 22 || injunction requests or motions pending further order of the Court. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 30, 2019 25 26 JAMES PONATO 27 United tates District Judge 28

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SILVIA A BRANDON PEREZ, 4 Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD Plaintiff, 5 ‘ v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al, Defendants. 8 9 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 10 District Court, Northern District of California. 11 12 That on October 30, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 13 = placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 15 receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16

17 || Silvia A Brandon Perez 2997 Hardeman Street 4 18 || Hayward, CA 94541 19 20 Dated: October 30, 2019 21 22 Susan Y. Soong 73 Clerk, United States District Court 24 95 Bf Mes . Ll 6 LISA. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JAMES DONATO 27 28