Rivers v. City of American Canyon

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEITH RIVERS, Case No. 22-cv-01576-JSC

8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915

10 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that his claim against 14 Judge Smith was barred by absolute judicial immunity and the remainder of his claims were not 15 sufficiently pleaded. (Dkt. No. 5.)

16 The complaint alleges interactions on September 14, October 15, November 5, and December 30, 2021, but it does not explain with 17 specificity why Plaintiff believes the interactions were unlawful or which particular Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights in each 18 interaction. The complaint must set forth specific factual allegations that, if assumed true, would allow the Court to draw the reasonable 19 inference that each Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 20 (Id. at 3.) The Court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend and now reviews the First Amended 21 Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 6.) 22 The FAC removes Judge Smith as a Defendant and removes allegations about their 23 interaction on October 15, 2021. It adds citations to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 24 the Fair Housing Amendments Act. However, the FAC adds no factual allegations to support 25 Plaintiff’s claims for relief. As the Court explained, Plaintiff must state with specificity which 26 Defendants he believes violated which of his rights. Plaintiff alleges a broad conspiracy between 27 police officers of American Canyon and Napa County, his neighbors, the property management 1 explain how they acted together or who did what to violate Plaintiff's rights. 2 Because Plaintiff's claims are not “sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the 3 claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests,’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508-YGR (PR), 4 |} 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 5 (2007)), the Court again gives Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. If Plaintiff 6 believes he may cure the deficiencies, or at least some of the deficiencies, he may file a Second 7 || Amended Complaint on or before June 13, 2022. The Court cannot refer to prior pleadings to 8 || make an amended complaint complete. Thus, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint must be 9 complete in itself because it replaces the previously filed complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 10 || F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 The Court again encourages Plaintiff to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s 12 Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 5 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 a Second Amended Complaint that cures the above-identified deficiencies 18 could also lead to dismissal of his complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 12, 2022 21 | □ 2 22 ne 73 ACQUELINE SCOTT COR United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28