(PS) Warfield v. Solano County Public Defenders Offices

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00782
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK J. WARFIELD, Case No. 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 v. DENYING HIS MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO SEAL 14 SOLANO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES, et al., ECF Nos. 2, 4, & 17 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS, HIS 17 MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED, AND HIS REMAINING MOTIONS 18 BE DENIED AS MOOT 19 ECF Nos. 3, 6, 20, 25, & 30 20 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 On May 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis.1 ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Since that time, he has filed, in rapid succession, numerous 24 amended complaints and several motions, including two motions for injunctive relief, a motion 25 for appointment of counsel, a motion to seal, a motion for information, and request for electronic 26

27 1 Plaintiff’s most recent complaint was filed January 23, 2023. ECF No. 30. Because the amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, I will screen the amended complaint. See 28 Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 1 filing. ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6, 17, 20, & 25. His most recent complaint, identified as his seventeenth 2 amended complaint, alleges that twenty-one defendants violated a collection of approximately 3 twenty federal and state statutes. I recommend that the operative complaint be dismissed without 4 leave to amend and that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.2 I will also grant 5 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the required showing under 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and deny both his motion to seal and his motion for appointment of counsel. 7 Screening and Pleading Requirements 8 This complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute requires 9 the court to dismiss any action filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis that is frivolous, 10 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 11 against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 12 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 14 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 15 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 16 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 17 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 18 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 19 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 20 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 21 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 22 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 23 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 24 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 25 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 26 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 27 2 Given that this action should be dismissed as frivolous, I also recommend that plaintiff’s 28 motions for information and to file documents electronically be denied as moot. 1 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 2 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Analysis 4 Plaintiff’s complaint consists of disjointed allegations that primarily concern two factually 5 unrelated events.3 First, plaintiff appears to allege that several attorneys and investigators 6 employed by the Solano County Public Defender’s Office violated the Racketeer Influenced and 7 Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and various criminal statutes by withholding information 8 concerning the murder of a Vallejo police officer. ECF No. 30 at 2-9. He alleges that in 2011, he 9 notified a 911 operator that his friend, Vallejo Police Officer Capoot, was going to be murdered. 10 Id. at 9, 11. The relevant authorities allegedly ignored the information, and Officer Capoot was 11 shot and killed. Id. Plaintiff appears to allege that the Fairfield Police Department concealed that 12 they had received his warning, and instead arrested him for placing an annoying phone call. Id. at 13 11. 14 Plaintiff also alleges several claims concerning a state court order authorizing a hospital to 15 medicate him against his will. Id. at 12-15. As far as I can discern, he alleges that he was found 16 incompetent, and that Solano County Superior Court Judge E. Bradley Nelson authorized the 17 Napa State Hospital to forcibly inject him with psychotropic medication. Id. Plaintiff states that 18 Jess Sullivan, a reporter for McNaughton Newspapers Daily Republic, wrote a news article 19 discussing the court’s decision, and in it made several defamatory statements.4 Id. at 15. 20 Plaintiff’s complaint does not comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short 21 and plain statement of his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As an initial matter, the first few pages of 22 the complaint list numerous defendants, statutes, and regulations, but the complaint fails to 23 identify which defendant allegedly violated each specific statute or regulation. See generally 24 3 In addition, the complaint contains vague allegations concerning an alleged failure by 25 the National Archives to properly maintain documents. The relevance of these allegations, however, cannot be easily gleaned from the complaint. 26 4 Plaintiff has attached a copy of the news article to several filings. According to the 27 article, the catalyst behind Judge Nelson’s decision was plaintiff’s use of a payphone at the Napa State Hospital to make approximately sixty bomb threats directed at the New Jersey Port 28 Authority. ECF No. 20 at 2. 1 ECF No. 30. “The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which 2 defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 3 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). More fundamentally, the majority of statutes cited by plaintiff are 4 criminal and thus do not provide a private right of action. Private citizens can neither initiate 5 federal criminal charges nor compel a governmental body to bring such charges. Further, 6 “criminal statutes . . . do not give rise to civil liability.” Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 7 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). 8 While plaintiff specifically identifies RICO in his allegations, he fails to state how each 9 defendant violated the statute. See Pineda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., 2008 WL 5187813, at *4 (C.D. 10 Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) (“It is not enough for [a plaintiff] to rely on mere labels and conclusions” to 11 establish a RICO claim but rather, plaintiff must give each defendant notice of the particular 12 predicate acts in which that defendant participated and must allege each predicate act with 13 specificity). 14 Additionally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents this court from disturbing Judge 15 Nelson’s order regarding plaintiff’s medication. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 16 2003) (“Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 17 to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.”); Worldwide Church of God v. 18 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[T]he United States District Court, as a court of 19 original jurisdiction, has no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial 20 proceedings.”). Moreover, the defendant judges are immune from suit based on their actions as 21 judges. See Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The general rule . . . is that 22 judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within and even in excess of their jurisdiction even 23 if those acts were done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception to this sweeping cloak of 24 immunity exists for acts done in ‘the clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”); Schucker v. Rockwood, 25 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 26 Accordingly, the operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 27 Given plaintiff’s allegations, I find that granting an opportunity to amend will not cure the 28 1 complaint’s deficiencies.5 Therefore, I recommend that the dismissal be without further leave to 2 amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (While the court ordinarily 3 would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears 4 amendment would be futile). 5 Motions for Injunctive Relief 6 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 7 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 8 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 9 Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 10 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 11 obtain a preliminary injunction.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 12 Cir. 2011). 13 Plaintiff’s moves for the Solano County Public Defender’s Office to “return[] USAF 14 Federal documents of PHI information back to the National Archives Administration of the 15 Federal Government” and that the office stops “all misrepresentations” within the Solano County 16 judicial district. ECF No. 3 at 1; ECF No. 20 at 1. Plaintiff states that at a hearing on January 23, 17 2018, a court denied his Marsden motion, found him incompetent, and ordered him to take 18 psychotropic medication against his will.6 ECF No. 3 at 3; ECF No. 20-1 at 2. He also asks that 19 the Napa State Hospital cease medicating him against his will, that the article published by Jess 20 Sullivan be removed from the internet, and that California Superior Court Judges Bradley Nelson 21 and William Prendergast be removed from of cases concerning him. ECF No. 20-1 at 2. 22 In finding plaintiff’s complaint inadequate to proceed past screening, I necessarily 23 5 Plaintiff’s prior complaints contained similar incoherent allegations. Plaintiff has also 24 filed other cases involving similar allegations, none of which have survived screening. See Warfield v. McNaughton Daily Republic Newspaper, No. 2:22-cv-01951-DAD-KJN, 2023 WL 25 359598, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim); Warfield v. Hale, No. 2:22-cv-01950-DAD-KJN (PS), 2022 WL 26 16748841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022) (same). 27 6 A Marsden motion in California law is one in which a defendant seeks to relieve his or her counsel and to have a new attorney appointed. Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 28 2000) (citing People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118, 84 (1970)). 1 recommend that his motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. To obtain such relief, a 2 plaintiff must show, among other factors, a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter, 555 3 at 20. He has made no such showing. 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel 5 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 6 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 7 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 8 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 10 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 11 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 12 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 13 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 14 legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 Plaintiff argues that he requires a court-appointed attorney because he is not experienced 16 in federal law and would suffer without adequate representation. ECF No. 4 at 1. Having 17 considered these factors, the court does find not that there are exceptional circumstances 18 warranting appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied as to his request for 19 appointment of counsel. 20 Motion to Seal 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to seal two documents: exhibit 1A, which he describes 22 as “confidential case file information that pertain[s to] the involuntary use of forced medication 23 while admitted to the Calif. Dept. Hospitals, Napa” and the judgment and sentencing abstract 24 from Solano County Superior court case FCR 329227. ECF No. 17 at 2. However, plaintiff has 25 neither complied with Local Rule 141 nor sent the court the documents that he seeks to have 26 sealed. Accordingly, the motion to seal is denied. 27 Accordingly, it is, it is ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 1 2. Plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel and to seal, ECF Nos. 4 & 17, are 2 | denied. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 3 & 20, be denied. 5 2. The operative complaint, ECF No. 30, be dismissed without leave to amend. 6 3. Plaintiff's motions for information and to file documents electronically, ECF Nos. 6 & 7 | 25, be denied as moot. 8 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 9 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 11 | Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 12 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 13 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 15 U.S.C. § 636(b))(C). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ January 26, 2023 q——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28