1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZIARAH QUINCY-KAMAZZ No. 2:25-cv-3114 AC P BROADUS-BYNUM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a county inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this 20 action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 21 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 23 //// 24 1 This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in monthly installments that 25 are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 26 1915(b)(1). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order directed to the appropriate 27 agency requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in 28 full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A 4 claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 5 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 6 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Id. at 327. The 7 critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable 8 legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by 9 statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 11 “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007). In other words, 13 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 14 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 15 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 16 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 17 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation 18 omitted). When considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the 19 allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), and construe the 20 complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 21 (1969) (citations omitted). 22 II. Complaint 23 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Modesto Police Department, Munoz, and Mabugot 24 violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically, on May 1, 2025, 25 Munoz and Mabugot arrived at the private property where plaintiff had been given permission to 26 sleep in the shed. Id. at 3-4. Munoz and Mabugot were responding to a report of possible 27 domestic violence that had been reported the day before; they did not have any warrant. Id. Even 28 though they had been denied consent to search the property, Munoz and Mabugot used drones to 1 surveil the property and entered the shed where plaintiff was sleeping. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was 2 immediately put under arrest while the three other guests on the property were released even 3 though they had no physical description of the suspect and only had a name. Id. at 3-4. The 4 officers illegally arrested plaintiff and seized evidence, and plaintiff was charged with resisting 5 arrest and giving false identification. Id. at 5-6. Munoz later testified that he did not have 6 authorization for a warrantless search or seizure, probable cause, or a description of the suspect 7 and could not explain why he arrested plaintiff. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further claims that his arrest 8 was the result of racial profiling. Id. at 3-4. He seeks immediate release from custody and 9 dismissal of the case against him. Id. at 7. 10 III. Failure to State a Claim 11 Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with a 12 pending state criminal case. “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in 13 overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 14 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) 15 (citations and footnote omitted). Younger abstention is required 16 if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) 17 the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would 18 enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger 19 disapproves. 20 Id. at 1092 (citations omitted). 21 In the instant case, the court finds that all four requirements for exercising Younger 22 abstention are met. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the state-initiated criminal 23 proceeding against plaintiff is still ongoing. The second requirement for Younger abstention is 24 also met because “state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests.” Lazarus v. 25 Baca, 389 F. App’x 700, 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986); 26 Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 585 (1979); Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZIARAH QUINCY-KAMAZZ No. 2:25-cv-3114 AC P BROADUS-BYNUM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a county inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this 20 action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 21 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 23 //// 24 1 This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in monthly installments that 25 are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 26 1915(b)(1). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order directed to the appropriate 27 agency requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in 28 full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A 4 claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 5 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 6 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Id. at 327. The 7 critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable 8 legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by 9 statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 11 “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007). In other words, 13 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 14 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 15 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 16 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 17 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation 18 omitted). When considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the 19 allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), and construe the 20 complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 21 (1969) (citations omitted). 22 II. Complaint 23 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Modesto Police Department, Munoz, and Mabugot 24 violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically, on May 1, 2025, 25 Munoz and Mabugot arrived at the private property where plaintiff had been given permission to 26 sleep in the shed. Id. at 3-4. Munoz and Mabugot were responding to a report of possible 27 domestic violence that had been reported the day before; they did not have any warrant. Id. Even 28 though they had been denied consent to search the property, Munoz and Mabugot used drones to 1 surveil the property and entered the shed where plaintiff was sleeping. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was 2 immediately put under arrest while the three other guests on the property were released even 3 though they had no physical description of the suspect and only had a name. Id. at 3-4. The 4 officers illegally arrested plaintiff and seized evidence, and plaintiff was charged with resisting 5 arrest and giving false identification. Id. at 5-6. Munoz later testified that he did not have 6 authorization for a warrantless search or seizure, probable cause, or a description of the suspect 7 and could not explain why he arrested plaintiff. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further claims that his arrest 8 was the result of racial profiling. Id. at 3-4. He seeks immediate release from custody and 9 dismissal of the case against him. Id. at 7. 10 III. Failure to State a Claim 11 Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with a 12 pending state criminal case. “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in 13 overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 14 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) 15 (citations and footnote omitted). Younger abstention is required 16 if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) 17 the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would 18 enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger 19 disapproves. 20 Id. at 1092 (citations omitted). 21 In the instant case, the court finds that all four requirements for exercising Younger 22 abstention are met. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the state-initiated criminal 23 proceeding against plaintiff is still ongoing. The second requirement for Younger abstention is 24 also met because “state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests.” Lazarus v. 25 Baca, 389 F. App’x 700, 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986); 26 Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 585 (1979); Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44). Finally, no reason 27 exists that would bar the state court from addressing plaintiff’s claims and allowing him to 28 proceed in federal court before the conclusion of his state court proceedings would have the 1 practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings because a decision in plaintiff’s favor would 2 require a finding that his arrest was unlawful and any evidence illegally obtained. 3 IV. No Leave to Amend 4 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 5 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 6 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 7 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 8 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 10 which relief may be granted and that given the nature of the claims, amendment would be futile. 11 The complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. 12 V. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 13 Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. That means you do not have to pay 14 the entire filing fee now. You will pay it over time, out of your trust account. 15 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 16 because you cannot bring a claim based on an illegal search and seizure while your criminal 17 proceedings are still ongoing. 18 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. 20 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 21 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 23 appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 24 3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 25 action. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed without leave to 27 amend as barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 2 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 3 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 4 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 6 | (Oth Cir. 1991). 7 || DATED: November 5, 2025 ~ Lhar—e_ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28