(PS) Gradford v. Perez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM JAMES GRADFORD, JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-2012-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. PEREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against A. Perez, a probation 18 officer, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 His complaint, however, fails 19 to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). I will, however, deny plaintiff’s request for global review as unnecessary. 22 ECF No. 5.2 23 24 25

1 The complaint also lists “Warden” and the “United States” as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 26 3. However, the complaint contains no allegations against either defendant. 27 2 Plaintiff has filed a document titled, “Request for Global Review,” in which he asks this court to review an unidentified settlement agreement from May 2019. The court does not have 28 the authority to review a settlement agreement from a prior, unrelated action. 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 5 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 6 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 7 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 8 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 9 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 10 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 11 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 12 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 13 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 14 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 15 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 16 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 17 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 18 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 19 Analysis 20 The complaint alleges in its entirety that on January 1, 2024, defendant “Perez used 21 [plaintiff] as a body to shield to search [his] residence at gun point after [Perez] was told that 22 [plaintiff] was going to kill him and other probation officers and others.” ECF No. 1 at 4. The 23 complaint identifies the First and Fourteenth Amendment as the bases for its allegations. Id. at 3. 24 It appears that plaintiff may be attempting to allege a Fourth Amendment claim pursuant 25 to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. “To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct 26 complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct 27 deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 28 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2011). The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be 1 secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 2 U.S. Const. amend. IV. A warrantless search or seizure inside a home is presumptively 3 unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980). 4 The complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to plead a Fourth Amendment claim. The 5 complaint does not state whether Perez unlawfully entered plaintiff’s home or whether the search 6 was unreasonable. Mendez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2018) 7 (explaining that, in certain circumstances, reasonable searches and seizures do not violate the 8 Fourth Amendment). Should plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, he would need to include 9 the specifics of the search, namely, whether Perez had a warrant or another lawful means of 10 entering the home, and where in the home Perez searched. 11 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 12 action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against the 13 defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 14 supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 15 (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 16 reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 17 filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 18 the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 19 sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 20 to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 21 recommend that this action be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is granted. 24 2. Plaintiff’s request for review of jurisdiction, ECF No. 5, is denied as unnecessary. 25 3. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend. 26 4. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 27 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 28 1 5. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 2 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 3 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 6. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ( — Dated: _ November 13, 2024 Q_——_. 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28