Richard Lyon v. Keaton Denlay

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 6, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00667
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD LYON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00667-DC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 KEATON DENLAY, (ECF No. 18) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Richard Lyon is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Pending before the 18 Court is Defendant Keaton Denlay’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 18.) On December 29, 2025, the Court vacated the 20 hearing scheduled for January 13, 2026 on Defendant’s motion. 12/29/2025 Order (ECF 21 No. 23). Briefing is now complete. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits the 22 motion upon the record and briefs on file. For the reasons that follow, the Court 23 RECOMMENDS GRANTING Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Allegations2 3 The Complaint, in its entirety, provides the following factual allegations. Plaintiff 4 alleges that on October 8, 2024, he entered the Recorder’s office in Butte Country, 5 California to record “a Release of Lien and Release of Mortgage designed to release a 6 lien, along with supporting affidavit(s) attesting to the lawful enactment of said document 7 to be recorded.” Compl. at 2. Defendant Keaton Denlay received Plaintiff’s documents 8 and “refused to record [Plaintiff’s] document(s).” Id. 9 B. Procedural Posture 10 Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant on February 26, 2025. Compl. 11 (ECF No. 1). The Complaint states this is a “suit of common-law” but does not assert a 12 specific claim or the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See generally Compl. Instead, 13 the Complaint states that Plaintiff has “established, under the standard of reasonable- 14 articulable suspicion, the triable allegations of[:]” “Unlawful Adjudication;” “Violation of 15 Due Process;” “Concealing Evidence;” “Breach of Duty;” Breach of Oath;” “Deprivation of 16 Rights Under Official Title;” “Abuse of Authority;” Official Misconduct;” “Maintaining False 17 Public Documents;” and “Defrauding the Public Record.” Compl. at 3-8. For relief, 18 Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,400,000, plus costs. Id. at 8. 19 On December 4, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and noticed it before 20 the undersigned. (ECF No. 18.) On December 29, 2025, the Court issued an order to 21 show cause due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition or statement of non- 22 opposition to Defendant’s motion. See 12/29/2025 Order. On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff 23 filed an unsigned opposition and response to the Court’s December 29, 2025 Order. 24 (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file signed copies 25

26 2 These facts primarily derive from the Complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. 27 Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 28 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 of his filings, without modifications, no later than January 23, 2026. 1/15/2026 Order 2 (ECF No. 26.) The Court also ordered that Defendant’s reply, if any, was due seven days 3 from the filing of the signed opposition. (Id.) On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed his 4 signed opposition and response to the Court’s December 29, 2025 Order. (ECF Nos. 27, 5 28.) On January 27, 2026, Defendant file his reply. (ECF No. 30.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 7 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment 8 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any 9 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any 10 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an 11 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th 12 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to amend does not need to be 13 provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023). 14 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts 15 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such 16 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 17 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 B. Rule 8 Pleading 19 Notice pleading in federal court requires that the complaint “give the defendant 20 fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Pursuant 22 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain 23 statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction…; (2) a short and plain statement of 24 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief 25 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” The 26 complaint must clearly and fully set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what 27 theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 28 (9th Cir. 1996). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Id. Rule 8(d)’s 1 requirement that each averment of a pleading be “‘simple, concise, and direct,’ applies to 2 good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” 3 Id. at 1179. “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend 4 on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” Id. 5 C. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6) 6 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon 7 which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if 8 it either lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 9 theory. Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). When considering 10 whether a claim has been stated, the court must accept the well-pleaded factual 11 allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non- 12 moving party. Id. However, the court is not required to accept as true conclusory factual 13 allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the complaint, or legal conclusions 14 merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 15 1071. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Rule 8. Def. 19 Mot. at 2-9 (ECF No. 18-1.) The Court finds the Complaint fails to state a claim and 20 should be dismissed with leave to amend. 21 A. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 22 Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Def. Mot. 23 Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion arguing the Complaint sufficiently states facts 24 supporting a “plausible” claim for relief. Pl. Opp’n. at 1-2 (ECF No. 28). In addition, for 25 the first time, Plaintiff alleges the Complaint raises claims for a “violation of procedural 26 due process” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a “breach of the mandatory ministerial duty 27 imposed by California Government Code § 27201.” Id. at 2. 28 / / / 1 The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required 2 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims and the 3 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 4 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 5 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 6 pleading policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the 7 elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 8 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint should clearly and fully 9 set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to 10 guide discovery.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 11 Here, the Complaint does not identify a specific cause of action or provide 12 sufficient allegations supporting a cognizable legal claim against Defendant, nor does it 13 assert a basis for federal court jurisdiction. In its current form, the Complaint fails to 14 provide Defendant with fair notice of the grounds on which each claim rests. Plaintiff also 15 seeks to raise new claims not originally raised in the Complaint, thereby making it 16 unclear which claims Plaintiff is seeking to proceed on. Compare Compl., with Pl. Opp’n. 17 at 2. The Complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and is 18 subject to dismissal. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-80 (affirming dismissal of complaint 19 where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and 20 on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 21 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to bring a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff must 22 allege the violation of a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, 23 and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person who acted under color of 24 state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 25 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2011). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights 26 claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the 27 constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful 28 conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 1 645 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 2 Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff can allege additional facts to state a viable 3 claim, and which claims Plaintiff is seeking to raise, the Court recommends granting 4 Plaintiff leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court recommends granting Defendant’s 5 motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 6 B. Leave to Amend 7 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se 8 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 9 succinctly. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. Leave to amend should be “freely given when justice 10 so requires” absent any declared or apparent reason, “such as undue delay, bad faith or 11 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 12 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 13 allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 14 178, 182 (1962); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 15 The Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the 16 Complaint to the extent he can allege facts that sufficiently plead his claims. Plaintiff is 17 warned that conclusory and broad allegations are insufficient to meet Rule 8. Plaintiff 18 must also assert a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court 19 recommends the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 20 The allegations of the amended complaint must be set forth in sequentially 21 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one 22 before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being 23 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of 24 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help 25 plaintiff organize his complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's 26 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 27 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. The amended complaint filed should be titled 28 “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff should not file a First Amended Complaint until 1 after the district judge rules on these findings and recommendations. The district 2 judge’s order will address whether Plaintiff has permission to file a First Amended 3 Complaint and if leave to amend is granted, the deadline for filing. 4 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess 5 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming 6 dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what facts 7 support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 8 complaint must not require the Court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain 9 statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiff[] to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended 10 complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to 11 determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179. 12 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filings 13 in order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 14 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a 15 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the 16 amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any 17 function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED: 20 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) be GRANTED with leave to 21 amend; and 22 2. After any order adopting these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff be 23 granted thirty (30) days from such order to file a First Amended Complaint 24 consistent with the Court’s order. Failure to timely file an amended 25 complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 26 Plaintiff should not file a First Amended Complaint until after the 27 district judge rules on these findings and recommendations and only 28 if the district judge grants leave to amend. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 3 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 4 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 5 || be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 6 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 7 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 9 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 | Dated: April 6, 2026 C i s 12 CHI SOO KIM 43 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 || 4, lyono667.25 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28