1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MEEKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(3) and 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s original pro se complaint filed on January 4, 2021 attempted to 19 assert claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985. (ECF No. 1.) In an order dated April 5, 20 2021, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and ordered its dismissal 21 for failure to state a claim and failure to meet the pleading standards of the Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. 23 On May 14, 2021, findings and recommendations were entered recommending that this 24 action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute because plaintiff had not 25 yet filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations 26 and requested leave to file a first amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13.) Plaintiff’s requests 27 are granted in that the first amended complaint (ECF No. 12) is deemed timely filed and is now 28 before the court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 I. PLEADING STANDARDS 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement for each claim 3 that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 4 policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. 5 Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 7 the court accepts the factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in the light most 8 favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 9 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not, 10 and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 11 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). 12 Although pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to 13 have doubts resolved in their favor, Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137, a plaintiff’s claims must be 14 facially plausible to survive screening. Facial plausibility for a claim requires sufficient factual 15 detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that a named defendant is liable for the misconduct 16 alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In order to state a claim, a complaint must 17 contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 18 elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). 19 Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 20 statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 21 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff brings this action against the Christian Life Church, the City of Stockton, the City 23 of Manteca, the Stockton Police Department, San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County Court, 24 San Joaquin County Probation Department and a handful of individually named defendants, 25 including a police officer, a probation officer, and individuals associated with the Christian Life 26 Church. Plaintiff alleges he was falsely arrested on charges of felony stalking after a student at 27 Christian Life College filed a restraining order against him. Plaintiff further alleges a pastor of the 28 Christian Life Church sent a hit man dressed in a police uniform to plaintiff’s house to kill 1 plaintiff and that the police officers who arrested him in his home were acting outside the scope 2 of their jurisdiction. 3 Plaintiff subsequently pleaded guilty to the criminal charges for which he was arrested. 4 Although he pleaded guilty, plaintiff alleges his conviction resulted from a conspiracy involving 5 judicial bribery. After his conviction, plaintiff was not allowed to attend Bible College at 6 Christian Life College, which he alleges has prevented him from pursuing a career in ministry. 7 III. FALSE ARREST, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, RETALIATION AND CONSPIRACY 8 9 The court’s original screening order identified several deficiencies in plaintiff’s original 10 complaint as to plaintiff’s intended claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, 11 and/or conspiracy. These deficiencies have not been corrected in the first amended complaint. 12 Specifically, the first amended complaint is replete with legal conclusions but does not set forth 13 factual allegations to support a claim for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation and/or 14 conspiracy. 15 Moreover, such claims are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 16 486-87 (1994) (“Heck”), in that plaintiff was arrested and pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 17 connection with the events described in the first amended complaint. These claims are barred 18 because prevailing on these claims would require plaintiff to imply that his criminal conviction is 19 invalid. See Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2003). 20 Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, and 21 conspiracy are not cognizable unless and until he can prove that his conviction or sentence has 22 been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 23 authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a 24 writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. In addition, as plaintiff was previously 25 advised, suits for money damages against an agency of the State, including the superior court, are 26 barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 27 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987). For all these reasons, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable 28 claim for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, and/or conspiracy. 1 IV. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION 2 The first amended complaint states plaintiff intends to bring a cause of action for a 3 violation of his right to the free exercise of religion. There are, however, no factual allegations to 4 support such a cause of action. 5 The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from 6 restricting an individual’s religious beliefs. See Employment Division, Dept. of Human 7 Resources of Oregon, et al. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990).
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 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:21-cv-00016-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MEEKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(3) and 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s original pro se complaint filed on January 4, 2021 attempted to 19 assert claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985. (ECF No. 1.) In an order dated April 5, 20 2021, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and ordered its dismissal 21 for failure to state a claim and failure to meet the pleading standards of the Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. 23 On May 14, 2021, findings and recommendations were entered recommending that this 24 action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute because plaintiff had not 25 yet filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations 26 and requested leave to file a first amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13.) Plaintiff’s requests 27 are granted in that the first amended complaint (ECF No. 12) is deemed timely filed and is now 28 before the court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 I. PLEADING STANDARDS 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement for each claim 3 that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 4 policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. 5 Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 6 When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 7 the court accepts the factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in the light most 8 favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 9 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not, 10 and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 11 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). 12 Although pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to 13 have doubts resolved in their favor, Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137, a plaintiff’s claims must be 14 facially plausible to survive screening. Facial plausibility for a claim requires sufficient factual 15 detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that a named defendant is liable for the misconduct 16 alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In order to state a claim, a complaint must 17 contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 18 elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). 19 Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 20 statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 21 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 22 Plaintiff brings this action against the Christian Life Church, the City of Stockton, the City 23 of Manteca, the Stockton Police Department, San Joaquin County, San Joaquin County Court, 24 San Joaquin County Probation Department and a handful of individually named defendants, 25 including a police officer, a probation officer, and individuals associated with the Christian Life 26 Church. Plaintiff alleges he was falsely arrested on charges of felony stalking after a student at 27 Christian Life College filed a restraining order against him. Plaintiff further alleges a pastor of the 28 Christian Life Church sent a hit man dressed in a police uniform to plaintiff’s house to kill 1 plaintiff and that the police officers who arrested him in his home were acting outside the scope 2 of their jurisdiction. 3 Plaintiff subsequently pleaded guilty to the criminal charges for which he was arrested. 4 Although he pleaded guilty, plaintiff alleges his conviction resulted from a conspiracy involving 5 judicial bribery. After his conviction, plaintiff was not allowed to attend Bible College at 6 Christian Life College, which he alleges has prevented him from pursuing a career in ministry. 7 III. FALSE ARREST, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, RETALIATION AND CONSPIRACY 8 9 The court’s original screening order identified several deficiencies in plaintiff’s original 10 complaint as to plaintiff’s intended claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, 11 and/or conspiracy. These deficiencies have not been corrected in the first amended complaint. 12 Specifically, the first amended complaint is replete with legal conclusions but does not set forth 13 factual allegations to support a claim for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation and/or 14 conspiracy. 15 Moreover, such claims are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 16 486-87 (1994) (“Heck”), in that plaintiff was arrested and pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 17 connection with the events described in the first amended complaint. These claims are barred 18 because prevailing on these claims would require plaintiff to imply that his criminal conviction is 19 invalid. See Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2003). 20 Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, and 21 conspiracy are not cognizable unless and until he can prove that his conviction or sentence has 22 been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 23 authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a 24 writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. In addition, as plaintiff was previously 25 advised, suits for money damages against an agency of the State, including the superior court, are 26 barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 27 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987). For all these reasons, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable 28 claim for false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, and/or conspiracy. 1 IV. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION 2 The first amended complaint states plaintiff intends to bring a cause of action for a 3 violation of his right to the free exercise of religion. There are, however, no factual allegations to 4 support such a cause of action. 5 The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from 6 restricting an individual’s religious beliefs. See Employment Division, Dept. of Human 7 Resources of Oregon, et al. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). To state a claim for a violation of 8 the right to free exercise of religion, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating (1) the defendant 9 acted under color of state law, and (2) the defendant deprived him of his rights secured by the 10 Free Exercise Clause. San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1030-31 11 (9th Cir. 2004). 12 Plaintiff appears to allege his first amendment rights were violated when he was not 13 permitted to attend Bible College at Christian Life College. Such allegations do not involve the 14 establishment of religion or the prohibition thereof. Plaintiff further does not identify any law that 15 has burdened his exercise of religion. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a valid claim under the 16 First Amendment for a violation of his free exercise of religion. See San Jose Christian College, 17 360 F.3d at 1030-31. 18 In addition, the first amended complaint does not include any plausible factual allegations 19 that a person acting under color of state law has burdened plaintiff’s rights under the First 20 Amendment. The individuals who are affiliated with the Christian Life Church can only be sued 21 under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and/or 1985 if they conspired with state actors to violate plaintiff’s 22 civil rights. See Melara v. Kennedy, 541 F.2d 802, 804-05 (9th Cir.1976). Although plaintiff 23 states in a conclusory fashion that the defendants have engaged in a conspiracy, plaintiff has not 24 named any state actors who are proper defendants for a claim under the First Amendment and 25 linked them to the alleged harm with factual allegations to support a conspiracy claim. Moreover, 26 to the extent plaintiff would base his First Amendment claim on any theory that would imply the 27 invalidity of his criminal conviction, such a claim would be Heck-barred unless and until plaintiff 28 can prove that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by 1 executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or 2 called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. 3 at 486-87. 4 For all these reasons, plaintiff fails to state a valid claim under the First Amendment. In 5 addition, based on these deficiencies, granting further leave to amend would not facilitate plaintiff 6 to state a valid claim under the First Amendment premised on the facts alleged. 7 V. CIVIL “RICO” CONSPIRACY 8 The first amended complaint additionally states plaintiff intends to bring a RICO 9 conspiracy claim. Among the remedies included by Congress in the Racketeer Influenced and 10 Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, is a private right of action for 11 treble damages available to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a 12 violation of section 1962” of the Act.” Id. § 1964(c). “The elements of a civil RICO claim are as 13 follows: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known 14 as ‘predicate acts’) (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. 15 E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). 16 Although the first amended complaint states plaintiff is asserting a RICO claim, the court 17 is unable to identify any facts that could support a valid civil RICO claim. Mere identification of 18 a cause of action, without any supporting factual allegations, cannot suffice to state a claim. Iqbal, 19 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, plaintiff cannot state a valid civil RICO claim based on the events 20 described in the complaint. 21 VI. CONCLUSION 22 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favor liberal amendment, valid reasons for 23 denying further leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility. California 24 Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 25 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). 26 Given the defects noted, granting further leave to amend in this case would be futile. 27 //// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on May 14, 2021 (ECF No. 6) are vacated; 3 || and 4 2. Plaintiffs requests to file an amended complaint and for an extension of time to file an 5 || amended complaint (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13) are granted to the extent that the first amended 6 || complaint (ECF No. 12) is deemed timely filed. 7 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 8 1. This action be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 9 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21 days after 12 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 13 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 14 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 15 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 16 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 | Dated: August 12, 2021 / ae □□ / a Ly a 18 CAROLYN K DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 8.whitsitt.0016.screenfac 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28