Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco

N.D. California

Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco

DecidedOctober 3, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-05469

StatusUnknown

This text of Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco (Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICHOLAS WATZKE, Case No. 22-cv-05469-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: ECF No. 1 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Nicholas Watzke filed this pro se action. He has been granted leave to proceed in 14 forma pauperis in a separate order. ECF No. 12. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint, 15 ECF No. 1, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, this action is 16 DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court shall dismiss an action brought by a plaintiff 20 proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which 21 relief may be granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The 23 standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 24 granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 25 standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 “Dismissal is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of 27 the claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and 1 them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. 2 B. Discussion 3 The complaint names as defendants the City and County of San Francisco and Charles 4 Watzke. ECF No. 1 at 1. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was staying at a Navigation Center 5 in San Francisco and was drugged, stalked, attacked, and kidnapped while living there. Id. at 2, 4- 6 5. The complaint further alleges that there were three attempts to murder Plaintiff as part of a 7 conspiracy. Id. at 4. The complaint asserts claims arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1111, 8 1113, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, and Cal. Penal Code § 186.22. Id. at 3–5. 9 The Court DISMISSES this action for the following reasons. 10 First, the complaint lacks facts sufficient to “give the defendant[s] fair notice of what 11 the . . . claim[s] [are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest[]. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 12 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint fails to 13 identify (1) who allegedly drugged, stalked, attacked, kidnapped, and attempted to murder; (2) the 14 specific Navigation Center at which these incidents allegedly took place; and (3) when these 15 incidents allegedly occurred. The complaint thus fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim for 16 relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 17 Second, Plaintiff brings his claims under a number of state and federal criminal statutes 18 that do not provide any private cause of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 19 1980) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242); Steen v. Rostram, No. 12-cv- 20 15016, 2012 WL 5844186, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2012) (no private cause of action under 18 21 U.S.C. § 1111); Yegorov v. Spain, No. 2:18-cv-1732-KJM-EFB PS, 2019 WL 5091151, at *2 22 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2019) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1113); In re Larch, 872 23 F.2d 66, 68 (4th Cir. 1989) (no private cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A); see Cal. Penal 24 Code § 186.22. 25 Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is 26 with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 27 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of 3 || the Court shall terminate all pending motions, issue judgment, and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 3, 2022 6 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICHOLAS WATZKE, Case No. 22-cv-05469-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: ECF No. 1 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Nicholas Watzke filed this pro se action. He has been granted leave to proceed in 14 forma pauperis in a separate order. ECF No. 12. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint, 15 ECF No. 1, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, this action is 16 DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court shall dismiss an action brought by a plaintiff 20 proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which 21 relief may be granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The 23 standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 24 granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 25 standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 “Dismissal is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of 27 the claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and 1 them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. 2 B. Discussion 3 The complaint names as defendants the City and County of San Francisco and Charles 4 Watzke. ECF No. 1 at 1. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was staying at a Navigation Center 5 in San Francisco and was drugged, stalked, attacked, and kidnapped while living there. Id. at 2, 4- 6 5. The complaint further alleges that there were three attempts to murder Plaintiff as part of a 7 conspiracy. Id. at 4. The complaint asserts claims arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1111, 8 1113, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, and Cal. Penal Code § 186.22. Id. at 3–5. 9 The Court DISMISSES this action for the following reasons. 10 First, the complaint lacks facts sufficient to “give the defendant[s] fair notice of what 11 the . . . claim[s] [are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest[]. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 12 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint fails to 13 identify (1) who allegedly drugged, stalked, attacked, kidnapped, and attempted to murder; (2) the 14 specific Navigation Center at which these incidents allegedly took place; and (3) when these 15 incidents allegedly occurred. The complaint thus fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim for 16 relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 17 Second, Plaintiff brings his claims under a number of state and federal criminal statutes 18 that do not provide any private cause of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 19 1980) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242); Steen v. Rostram, No. 12-cv- 20 15016, 2012 WL 5844186, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2012) (no private cause of action under 18 21 U.S.C. § 1111); Yegorov v. Spain, No. 2:18-cv-1732-KJM-EFB PS, 2019 WL 5091151, at *2 22 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2019) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1113); In re Larch, 872 23 F.2d 66, 68 (4th Cir. 1989) (no private cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A); see Cal. Penal 24 Code § 186.22. 25 Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is 26 with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 27 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of 3 || the Court shall terminate all pending motions, issue judgment, and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 3, 2022 6 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Watzke v. City and County of San Francisco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watzke-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack