Wilson v. Wilson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01076
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-01076-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND 9 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT

10 JAMI CAROLINE WILSON et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4 Defendants. 11

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Michael Wilson alleges that his former wife and others associated with her 14 have deprived him of the companionship and affection of his daughter since 2010. The complaint 15 mentions several California Penal Code provisions but states one claim under California Civil 16 Code Section 49, which in pertinent part forbids the “abduction or enticement of a child from a 17 parent, or from a guardian entitled to its custody.” Cal. Civ. Code § 49(a). Wilson has asked to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 4. The request is granted, but the complaint is 19 dismissed with leave to amend. 20 IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether a 21 plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer here is yes. 22 Wilson states he has not been employed since 2013, has no assets of any value, and some debts. 23 Dkt. No. 4. Wilson meets the financial qualification for IFP status. 24 The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The 25 Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief may 26 be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). As a pro se plaintiff, 1 satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. Nguyen 2 Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-CV-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 3 || Aug. 27, 2015). 4 Wilson has not alleged a claim under Section 49. California courts have long held that 5 Section 49 “definitely limits the causes of action” to the predicates enumerated in the statute, 6 which in this case are abduction or enticement of a child. Rudley v. Tobias, 190 P.2d 984, 986 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) Ginternal quotation omitted). There is no plausible allegation in the complaint 8 || that Wilson’s daughter was kidnapped or enticed. Rather, the complaint focuses on alleged 9 || interference with Wilson’s relationship with and access to his daughter, which is not a recognized 10 || cause of action under California law. See Smith v. Pust, 19 Cal. App. 4th 263, 268-69 (1993); In 11 re Marriage of Segel, 179 Cal. App. 3d 602, 607 (1986); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 43.5(a). 12 Wilson may file an amended complaint by June 22, 2020, that is consistent with this order. 5 13 || A failure to file by that date will result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 41(b). 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: May 12, 2020

JAMES JPONATO 19 United Jtates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28