(PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa

E.D. California

(PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa

DecidedJanuary 13, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03059

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa ((PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAOUL E HARLEY JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-3059-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against defendant County of Contra County, seeking to 18 challenge a state court order requiring him to make child support payments. His complaint, 19 however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint 20 that better explains the factual basis for his claims. I will also grant his application to proceed in 21 forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 22 (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. Id. 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that plaintiff seeks to challenge a state court 20 order requiring him to make child support payments. Plaintiff appears to contend that the order is 21 void because it does not include an official seal and is not signed by a judge. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. 22 He asks that this court dismiss his child support case and order defendant to reimburse him for 23 wages garnished under the support order. Id. at 5. The complaint indicates that this suit is 24 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 3. 25 To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acting under color of 26 state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 27 Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). “[A] local government may not be 28 sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Monell v. Dep’t of 1 Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). But a local government may be sued when an employee 2 who committed a constitutional violation was “acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official 3 policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final policymaker.” Thomas v. Cnty. of Riverside, 4 763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Plaintiff’s complaint 5 neither identifies the specific constitutional right defendant allegedly violated nor alleges that 6 plaintiff’s rights were violated pursuant to a policy or custom. 7 Moreover, plaintiff’s suit, which appears to challenge a state court support order, runs 8 afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) 9 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 10 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claim because 11 alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief 12 he sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong 13 and thus void”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests federal district courts of jurisdiction to 14 conduct direct reviews of final state court determination. See Worldwide Church of God v. 15 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The United States District Court . . . has no 16 authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). 17 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 18 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 19 Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against defendant. If plaintiff 20 decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 21 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 22 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 23 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 24 serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to 25 assert each claim and allege defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 26 should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff 27 does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAOUL E HARLEY JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-3059-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against defendant County of Contra County, seeking to 18 challenge a state court order requiring him to make child support payments. His complaint, 19 however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint 20 that better explains the factual basis for his claims. I will also grant his application to proceed in 21 forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 22 (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. Id. 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that plaintiff seeks to challenge a state court 20 order requiring him to make child support payments. Plaintiff appears to contend that the order is 21 void because it does not include an official seal and is not signed by a judge. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. 22 He asks that this court dismiss his child support case and order defendant to reimburse him for 23 wages garnished under the support order. Id. at 5. The complaint indicates that this suit is 24 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 3. 25 To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acting under color of 26 state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 27 Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). “[A] local government may not be 28 sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Monell v. Dep’t of 1 Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). But a local government may be sued when an employee 2 who committed a constitutional violation was “acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official 3 policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final policymaker.” Thomas v. Cnty. of Riverside, 4 763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Plaintiff’s complaint 5 neither identifies the specific constitutional right defendant allegedly violated nor alleges that 6 plaintiff’s rights were violated pursuant to a policy or custom. 7 Moreover, plaintiff’s suit, which appears to challenge a state court support order, runs 8 afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) 9 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 10 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claim because 11 alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief 12 he sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong 13 and thus void”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests federal district courts of jurisdiction to 14 conduct direct reviews of final state court determination. See Worldwide Church of God v. 15 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The United States District Court . . . has no 16 authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). 17 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 18 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 19 Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against defendant. If plaintiff 20 decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 21 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 22 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 23 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 24 serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to 25 assert each claim and allege defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 26 should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff 27 does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 3 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend. 4 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 5 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 6 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 7 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 8 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 9 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie - Dated: _ January 12, 2025 q-—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-harley-v-county-of-contra-costa-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack