(PS) Leonard-Hayselden v. San Diego Police Dept.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 9, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01298
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LEONARD-HAYSELDEN et al., Case No.: 3:23-CV-1298-JO-BLM 9 Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On December 13, 2022, pro se Plaintiffs Tasheda J. Leonard-Hayselden and 17 Matthew H. Leonard-Hayselden filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California 18 alleging that Defendant San Diego Police Department kidnapped their two children. Dkt. 19 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiffs also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 2. 20 On July 14, 2023, the case was transferred to this Court. Dkt. 6. For the following reasons, 21 the Court grants Plaintiffs’ IFP request and dismisses the complaint in full under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2). 23 I. PLAINTIFF’S IFP MOTION 24 Upon review of Plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of their IFP motion, the Court finds 25 that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee required to 26 prosecute this action. See Dkt. 2. Accordingly, the motion is granted. 27 28 1 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 Because Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed IFP, their Complaint must undergo 3 a sua sponte screening for dismissal. A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and 5 dismissal by the Court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 7 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 8 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 9 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 10 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 12 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 13 1998) (noting that “[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint “contain 15 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 18 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. Pro 19 se complaints are construed “liberally” and may be dismissed for failure to state a claim 20 only “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 21 claim which would entitle him to relief.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 22 Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 Upon screening Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court finds that their sole claim under 18 24 U.S.C. § 1201, the federal criminal statute prohibiting kidnapping, fails as a matter of law. 25 Because private plaintiffs cannot sue under federal criminal statutes, Plaintiffs have failed 26 to plead a legally valid claim. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of 27 Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994); Celece v. Dunn Sch., 2021 WL 3190910, at *6 28 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (finding no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1201); 1 Gumber v. Fagundes, 2021 WL 4311904, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2021), report and 2 recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3563065 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) (same); Giano v. 3 Martino, 673 F. Supp. 92, 95 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 835 F.2d 1429 (2d Cir. 1987) (same). 4 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice. 5 Dismissal with prejudice is warranted here because the flaw in the claim cannot be 6 cured with amendment. Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 7 2002) (finding leave to amend futile where “plaintiffs cannot cure the basic flaw in their 8 pleading”); see also Gumber, 2021 WL 4311904, at *3 (dismissing without leave to amend 9 § 1201 claim for federal kidnapping). Because Plaintiffs have no right of action under 10 federal criminal laws no matter what facts they allege, any amendment of their § 1201 11 claim would be futile. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim under the current 12 allegations is dismissed with prejudice. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP 15 and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ complaint in full under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Clerk is 16 instructed to close the case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: August 9, 2023

20 –––––––––––––––––––––– 21 Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28