(PS) Andreyev v. Chatigny

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE E. ANDREYEV, Case No. 2:24-cv-2651-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL CHATIGNY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Eugene E. Andreyev (“plaintiff”) alleges that his rights were violated when, in October 18 2023, Placer County sheriff’s deputies unlawfully drew his blood, deprived him of his right to 19 familial association, and falsely arrested and detained him. ECF No. 7 at 10. In terms of named 20 defendants, plaintiff has effectively sued only Placer County, insofar as he has named the county 21 as a defendant and chosen to sue Sheriff Wayne Woo and County Executive Officer Daniel 22 Chartigny, the only named defendants, in their official capacities. Plaintiff has also sued four 23 unidentified John and Jane Doe sheriff’s deputies whom he alleges are responsible for the 24 unauthorized blood draw. The complaint remains deficient. Although I previously indicated that 25 this would be plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend, I will, out of an abundance of caution and 26 recognizing the possibility of a viable claim, offer one additional opportunity. 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief. Id. 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely arrested and detained, that his blood was drawn 26 unlawfully, and that he was deprived of his right to familial association when his daughter passed 27 away while he was in detention. ECF No. 7 at 7-8. As an initial matter, the blood draw and the 28 denial of familial association claims are insufficiently related to proceed in the same suit. 1 Additionally, the claims against Placer County do not adequately identify a policy or custom of 2 the county. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[An] official-capacity suit is, in all 3 respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 4 Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (“[I]t is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, 5 whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent 6 official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”). 7 Plaintiff does allege that the county has a policy or custom of unlawfully arresting individuals, 8 drawing their blood without a warrant, and violating constitutional rights. ECF No. 7 at 9. 9 However, plaintiff provides little more than a recitation of his claims and the bare assertion that 10 the county had a policy of violating his rights; it is insufficient. See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 11 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal justified where “Monell and supervisory liability 12 claims lack any factual allegations that would separate them from the formulaic recitation of a 13 cause of action’s elements deemed insufficient by Twombly”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Plaintiff’s claim alleging a warrantless blood draw might be actionable insofar as such 15 action can be violative of the Fourth Amendment. See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 16 474 (2016). This claim, asserted only against the “Doe” defendants in their personal capacities, 17 cannot proceed without identification of at least one defendant, however. 18 I will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend so that plaintiff may have one final 19 opportunity to remedy these deficiencies. As before, his amended complaint will supersede its 20 predecessor entirely. The next amended complaint should be entitled “Third Amended 21 Complaint.” 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 7, is DISMISSED with leave to 24 amend. 25 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 26 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 27 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 28 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 1 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ( _ Dated: _ June 2, 2025 q-—— 5 JEREMY D. PETERSON 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28