Saron R. J. Green v. County of Kern, et al.

Opinion

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SARON R. J. GREEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-614-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 12 v. TO THIS ACTION 13 COUNTY OF KERN, et al. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE 14 Defendants. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 15 CLAIM; DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 16 (ECF No. 12). 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 18 THIRTY DAYS 19 20 21 Plaintiff SaRon Green proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this civil action. 22 (ECF Nos. 1, 3). Plaintiff filed the initial complaint commencing this action on May 23, 2025. 23 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he signed a form relating to his deceased mother’s remains, but 24 that someone at the Kern County Sheriff’s Office provided his family with a forged form instead, 25 and as a result his mother’s remains were cremated rather than buried. (Id., pp. 4-5). 26 On January 12, 2026, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to 27 state any cognizable claims. The Court provided Plaintiff with leave to file a first amended 28 complaint or to notify the Court that he wants to stand on his initial complaint. (ECF No. 11). 1 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 23, 2026. (ECF No. 12). 2 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges that following his mother’s death, he was 3 provided three forms by individuals at the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, one of which 4 Plaintiff alleges was forged and provided to his family. As a result, Plaintiff states his mother’s 5 remains were cremated rather than buried. (ECF No. 12). 6 Upon review, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be 7 dismissed. 8 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 9 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 10 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 11 have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 12 or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 13 II. BACKGROUND 14 A. Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint and Screening Order 15 Plaintiff filed his complaint1 on May 23, 2025, and named as defendants the County of 16 Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and Kern County Jail Justice Facility (KCJJF). (ECF 17 No. 1). 18 Plaintiff stated on July 13, 2022, his mother passed away while he was in custody at 19 KCJJF. Plaintiff alleged that he was provided with an authorization/consent form to designate an 20 individual to be responsible for the cremation and/or funeral and was told to sign the form by a 21 Sheriff officer and Chaplin Victor Perez. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff alleged he signed the form, as did 22 Chaplin Perez and dated it July 27, 2022. (Id.). However, Plaintiff alleges that night he was 23 brought a blank authorization/consent form and the form that he and Chaplin Perez signed 24 25 26

27 1 On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend the Complaint,” in which Plaintiff requested leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9). On August 21, 2025, the Court 28 granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint no later than October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 10). However, the Court stated that “[i]f no amended complaint is filed by the October 6, 2025, deadline, the Court will proceed with screening the current complaint.” (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff never filed a first amended complaint. 1 earlier.2 Plaintiff alleged, “I had Deputy Sheriff Valdez (after my signature & Chaplin’s 2 signature) make a copy of the ‘original form’ and the duplicated copy/forged form.” (Id.). 3 Plaintiff stated that “the forged document . . . was the form turned over for my family to 4 proceed with my mother’s death, as if it were a true and legal document, which it is not and my 5 rights/consents & authorization was not given legally! So my mother was ‘cremated’ & ‘not 6 buried’ by this forged document and my rights could not be given without my valid signature.” 7 (Id. at 5). 8 On January 12, 2026, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to 9 state any cognizable claims. The Court provided Plaintiff with leave to file a first amended 10 complaint or to notify the Court that he wants to stand on his initial complaint. (ECF No. 11). 11 Additionally, the screening order provided Plaintiff with the appropriate legal standards. (Id.). 12 B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 13 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 23, 2026. (ECF No. 12). In the 14 amended complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants: County of Kern; Kern County Sheriff 15 Department; Kern County Jail Justice Facility; Victor Perez, Institutional Chaplain at Kern 16 County Jail; KCSO Deputy Valdez; Kern County Sheriff’s Office Coroner; Chief Deputy Sheriff 17 Donny Youngblood; and KCSO Commander Cisneros. (Id. at 2). 18 Generally, Plaintiff’s claims in the first amended complaint are similar to the claims in his 19 initial complaint. Plaintiff alleges following his mother’s death, he was provided a mortuary 20 release form by Chaplin Perez, which he alleges was signed, but not by him (Id. at 3, 8). Plaintiff 21 alleges two days later, he was brought another form, Kern County Sheriff’s Office Coroner 22 Authorization/Consent. The form was blank, except for the signature of Chaplin Perez. The form 23 provided authorization or consent to an individual to handle all cremation or funeral 24 determinations. Plaintiff filled out and signed the form, provided the maiden name of his younger 25 sister, because he was unaware that she married. (Id. at 5, 10). Plaintiff alleges this form was not 26 submitted, but a second form was submitted, which provided his sister’s married name. (Id. at 6, 27 12). 28

2 Plaintiff attached both forms as exhibits. Plaintiff alleges Exhibit A is the “forged” document and Exhibit B is the “valid” form. 1 As a result, Plaintiff alleges his mother was cremated, instead of provided a funeral, as he 2 and his siter agreed to. (Id. at 5). 3 Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $250 million. 4 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 5 A. Lack of Short and Plain Statement 6 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8’s 7 requirement of a short and plain statement. 8 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 9 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 10 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 13 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 14 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 15 plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not 16 required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 17 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The complaint must also contain 18 “sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to 19 20 defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, Plaintiff 21 must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his 22 rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. 23 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of 24 Plaintiff’s claims, as required by this Rule. While Plaintiff lists various constitutional violations 25 throughout, such as the contracts clause, the takings clause, and due process, he does not describe 26 what facts support what claims. Plaintiff also does not name any person who allegedly violated 27 his rights. Plaintiff merely claims the named defendants violated the “color of office” by acting as 28 such and not stopping “him” from forging his signature on the submitted form. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal for not containing a short and plain 1 statement of the claim as required by Rule 8. 2 B. State Law Fraud Claim 3 To the extent Plaintiff intends to assert a claim for fraud against Chaplin Perez, that claim 4 is also subject to dismissal because it is a state law claim that cannot proceed as the only claim in 5 federal court, and because Plaintiff has not indicated he complied with the California Government 6 Claims Act. 7 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 8 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have jurisdiction only if the claim arises under the 9 Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, over where there is diversity of citizenship. 10 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 11 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States”); see also 28 12 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (providing that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction if there is 13 diversity jurisdiction). 14 Fraud is tort claim under state law. See Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc., 84 15 Cal.App.5th 828, 838–839 (2022) (giving elements of fraud under California law). It is not a 16 federal claim and is not subject to federal jurisdiction.3 17 Moreover, any fraud claim against a government employee must allege compliance with 18 the Government Claims Act. California’s Government Claims Act requires that a tort claim 19 against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and 20 Government Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six 21 months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950– 22 950.2. Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions 23 precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (Cal. 24 2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a 25 tort claim against a public entity or employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the 26 Government Claims Act. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1245; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. 27 Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). 28

3 Although this Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim if there were other federal claims pending in the case, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not assert any federal claims. 1 Plaintiff's first amended complaint does not allege that he filed a claim with the California 2 | Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board or otherwise complied with California’s 3 | Government Claims Act. 4 As such, Plaintiffs state law claim for fraud should be dismissed. 5 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 For these reasons, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 7 | The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint, provided Plaintiff with relevant legal standards, 8 | and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. Thus, it appears that further leave ? to amend would be futile. 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. Additionally, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: "2 1. This case be dismissed, without prejudice; and ° 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 29 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 21 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 23, 2026 [Je Fahey — 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28