KEITH RIVERS, Case No. 22-cv-01576-JSC
Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants.
The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 4.) It must now review the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff’s claims do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court gives Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. Plaintiff is an African American man who was a resident of American Canyon, California for over four years. On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff’s neighbor Victor Ramon Fregoso punched Plaintiff’s parked vehicle, causing $1,500 in damages. Officers Ruggiero and Scott decided not to arrest Mr. Fregoso. Mr. Fregoso also “attacked Plaintiff . . . on more than one occasion”; all the Defendants involved knew about the attacks but ignored them. (Dkt. No. 1 at 18.) On October 15, 2021, Napa County Superior Court Judge Cynthia P. Smith denied Plaintiff’s request for a restraining order against Mr. Fregoso. Judge Smith “displayed favoritism . . . probably due to skin color, which is discrimination.” (Id.) “The courts and the police have failed to protect me and my family on purpose.” (Id. at 23.) On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested at his home “for misdemeanor disturbing the peace with fighting,” and was later evicted. (Id.) recently, on December 30, 2021, an officer drove past Plaintiff while he was filling his car at a gas station in the middle of the night. The officer parked across the street and waited for Plaintiff. When Plaintiff left the gas station, the officer followed and tailgated Plaintiff for eight blocks. Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 9.) He also describes “violation of civil and constitutional rights, discrimination, negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment, conspiracy, slander, libel, discourtesy, racial profiling, wrongful eviction, harassment, mental distress, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.” (Id. at 10.) He names as Defendants the City of American Canyon, American Canyon Police Department, City of Napa, County of Napa, Napa County Superior Court, Napa County Department of Corrections, and Napa County Sheriff’s Department; American Canyon police officers Jeffrey Scott, Wagoner, Scott Ruggiero, and Cooley, sued in their individual capacities; Napa County Superior Court Judge Cynthia P. Smith, sued in her individual capacity; the property manager of Plaintiff’s residence, Reliant Property Management; Reliant’s employees Demetrius Mance, Jacqueline Ponce, Averen Calvin, and Luis Doe; Reliant’s attorneys Krista Anne-Marie Lister, Scott Chaplan, Gary Fidler, and Richard Greene; and Plaintiff’s neighbors Victor Ramon Fregoso and Valerina Prekaj. A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege facts that plausibly establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, No. 20-CV- 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not allege enough facts, in enough detail, to give Defendants fair notice of the basis for his claims. The complaint alleges interactions on September 14, October 15, November 5, and December 30, 2021, but it does not explain with specificity why Plaintiff believes the interactions were unlawful or which particular Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights in each interaction. The complaint must set forth specific factual allegations that, if assumed true, would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that each Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Additionally, Judge Smith is immune from Plaintiff’s claim. “[A]bsolute immunity insulates judges from charges of erroneous acts or irregular action, even when it is alleged that such action was driven by malicious or corrupt motives.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). “Judicial immunity discourages collateral attacks on final judgments through civil suits, and thus promotes the use of appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting 1 mechanisms of review.” Jd. (cleaned up). Because of absolute judicial immunity, Plaintiff's claim 2 against Judge Smith is barred. 4 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Smith are barred by 5 absolute judicial immunity and thus are dismissed without leave to amend. The remainder of 6 Plaintiffs claims are not sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KEITH RIVERS, Case No. 22-cv-01576-JSC
Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants.
The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 4.) It must now review the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff’s claims do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court gives Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. Plaintiff is an African American man who was a resident of American Canyon, California for over four years. On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff’s neighbor Victor Ramon Fregoso punched Plaintiff’s parked vehicle, causing $1,500 in damages. Officers Ruggiero and Scott decided not to arrest Mr. Fregoso. Mr. Fregoso also “attacked Plaintiff . . . on more than one occasion”; all the Defendants involved knew about the attacks but ignored them. (Dkt. No. 1 at 18.) On October 15, 2021, Napa County Superior Court Judge Cynthia P. Smith denied Plaintiff’s request for a restraining order against Mr. Fregoso. Judge Smith “displayed favoritism . . . probably due to skin color, which is discrimination.” (Id.) “The courts and the police have failed to protect me and my family on purpose.” (Id. at 23.) On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested at his home “for misdemeanor disturbing the peace with fighting,” and was later evicted. (Id.) recently, on December 30, 2021, an officer drove past Plaintiff while he was filling his car at a gas station in the middle of the night. The officer parked across the street and waited for Plaintiff. When Plaintiff left the gas station, the officer followed and tailgated Plaintiff for eight blocks. Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 9.) He also describes “violation of civil and constitutional rights, discrimination, negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment, conspiracy, slander, libel, discourtesy, racial profiling, wrongful eviction, harassment, mental distress, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.” (Id. at 10.) He names as Defendants the City of American Canyon, American Canyon Police Department, City of Napa, County of Napa, Napa County Superior Court, Napa County Department of Corrections, and Napa County Sheriff’s Department; American Canyon police officers Jeffrey Scott, Wagoner, Scott Ruggiero, and Cooley, sued in their individual capacities; Napa County Superior Court Judge Cynthia P. Smith, sued in her individual capacity; the property manager of Plaintiff’s residence, Reliant Property Management; Reliant’s employees Demetrius Mance, Jacqueline Ponce, Averen Calvin, and Luis Doe; Reliant’s attorneys Krista Anne-Marie Lister, Scott Chaplan, Gary Fidler, and Richard Greene; and Plaintiff’s neighbors Victor Ramon Fregoso and Valerina Prekaj. A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege facts that plausibly establish each defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV-03456-JSC, 2015 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, No. 20-CV- 00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff is proceeding without representation by a lawyer. While the Court must construe the complaint liberally, see Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to the factual allegations in the complaint, see Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented by a lawyer remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this District. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(a). Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not allege enough facts, in enough detail, to give Defendants fair notice of the basis for his claims. The complaint alleges interactions on September 14, October 15, November 5, and December 30, 2021, but it does not explain with specificity why Plaintiff believes the interactions were unlawful or which particular Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights in each interaction. The complaint must set forth specific factual allegations that, if assumed true, would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that each Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Additionally, Judge Smith is immune from Plaintiff’s claim. “[A]bsolute immunity insulates judges from charges of erroneous acts or irregular action, even when it is alleged that such action was driven by malicious or corrupt motives.” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). “Judicial immunity discourages collateral attacks on final judgments through civil suits, and thus promotes the use of appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting 1 mechanisms of review.” Jd. (cleaned up). Because of absolute judicial immunity, Plaintiff's claim 2 against Judge Smith is barred. 4 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Smith are barred by 5 absolute judicial immunity and thus are dismissed without leave to amend. The remainder of 6 Plaintiffs claims are not sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If Plaintiff believes he may cure the 7 deficiencies, or at least some of the deficiencies, he may file an amended complaint on or before 8 May 4, 2022. The Court cannot refer to prior pleadings to make an amended complaint complete. 9 Thus, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself because it replaces the previously 10 filed complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal 12 Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 13 Plaintiff should make a telephone appointment by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing 14 fedpro@sfbar.org. 3 15 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil a 16 Procedure, the Local Rules, or any court order could result in dismissal of his complaint. 3 17 Similarly, failure to file an amended complaint that cures the above-identified deficiencies could 18 also lead to dismissal of his complaint. 20 Dated: April 4, 2022 21 | 5 , | 22 ne 73 JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28