Homer E. Crockett Jr. v. The State of California et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff is further advised tha t if he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOMER E. CROCKETT JR.,
Plaintiff,

12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.

13
14

Case No. CV 18-1397 DSF (SS)

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and
HON. ELDEN FOX,

15

LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20
21

On

February

20,

2018,

plaintiff

Homer

E.

Crockett

Jr.

22

(“Plaintiff”), a California resident proceeding pro se, filed a

23

civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”).

24

(Dkt.

25

California and Superior Court Judge Elden Fox are liable for false

26

imprisonment, malicious prosecution, search and seizurs [sic], and

27

tort claims.

28

No.

1).

Plaintiff

(Id. at 1, 8).

vaguely

alleges

that

the

State

of

1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a trial court

2

may dismiss a claim sua sponte “where the claimant cannot possibly

3

win relief.”

4

Cir. 1987); see also Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916

5

F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (adopting the Ninth

6

Circuit’s position in Omar and noting that such a sua sponte

7

dismissal “is practical and fully consistent with plaintiff’s

8

rights and the efficient use of judicial resources”).

9

plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court must

10

construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the

11

benefit of any doubt.

12

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). In giving liberal interpretation

13

to a pro se complaint, the court may not, however, supply essential

14

elements of a claim that were not initially pled.

15

Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

16

court must give a pro se litigant leave to amend the complaint

17

unless

18

complaint could not be cured by amendment.”

19

at 623 (citation omitted).

20

Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.1

it

is

Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th

When a

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t.,

“absolutely

clear

that

the

Ivey v. Bd. of

deficiencies

of

A

the

Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d

For the reasons stated below, the

21
22
23
24
25
26
A magistrate judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without the approval of a district judge. See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
1

27
28

2

1

II.

2

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

3
4

Plaintiff’s Complaint is largely unintelligible.

He vaguely

5

alleges that he was subject to “unjustified dention [sic]” and

6

“negligence” by Defendants.

7

that Defendants subjected him to “false imprisonment” by admitting

8

affidavits of evidence and testimony of witnesses before a court

9

of law.

(Id. at 3).

(Compl. at 2).

He further alleges

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants are

10

liable for various California unnamed employees committing perjury

11

and corrupt acts.

12

that the State of California issued a warrant that resulted in an

13

unreasonable search and seizure.

14

million in damages and “interest at the maximum rate.”

15

9).

(Id. at 4-5, 7).

Finally, Plaintiff alleges

(Id. at 6).

Plaintiff seeks $24
(Id. at 8-

16
17

III.

18

DISCUSSION

19
20

A.

The Complaint Fails To State A Claim Against Either Defendant

21
22

In order to state a claim, the complaint need not contain

23

detailed factual allegations, but it must, at a minimum, plead

24

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

25

face.”

26

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

27

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that

28

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

3

“A

Ashcroft v.

1

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

2

and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause

4

“Threadbare

5

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

6

556 U.S. at 678.

of

action

will

recitals

not
of

do.”

the

A pleading that offers “labels

Twombly,

elements

of

a

550

U.S.

cause

of

at

555.

action,
Iqbal,

7
8

Here, other than naming the State of California and Judge Fox

9

as Defendants, the Complaint does not allege sufficient facts that

10

tie either Defendant to any of the four alleged claims.

(Compl.

11

2-7).

12

the State of California or Judge Fox, and Plaintiff’s claims

13

against the State of California and Judge Fox must be dismissed,

14

with leave to amend.

As a result, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against either

15
16

B.

The State of California Is An Improper Defendant

17
18

The Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court for money

19

damages against a state or one of its agencies or departments.

See

20

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 8, 100 (1984);

21

see also Pittman v. Oregon Employment Dep’t, 509 F.3d 1065, 1071

22

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n unconsenting State is immune from suits

23

brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens

24

of another State.”) (citation omitted).

25

has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to

26

claims brought under § 1983 in federal court, and the Supreme Court

27

has held that ‘§ 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State’s

28

Eleventh Amendment immunity.’ ”

“The State of California

Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d
4

1

1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

2

159, 169 n.17 (1985)).

3

precludes Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against the State

4

of California, the State of California is an improper defendant.

5

Accordingly, the claims against the State of California must be

6

dismissed.

Therefore, because the Eleventh Amendment

7
8

C.

Defendant Fox Is Entitled To Absolute Judicial Immunity

9
10

“Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken

11

within the jurisdiction of their courts.”

Ashelman v. Pope, 793

12

F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc); see Pangelinan v.

13

Wiseman, 370 F. App’x 818, 819 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court

14

properly concluded that the judges were immune to the extent they

15

were sued for claims arising from their decisions in [plaintiff’s]

16

lawsuits.”).

17

“[j]udges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely

18

immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official

19

capacities.”

20

“immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages,”

21

and applies “even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously

22

and corruptly.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (citation omitted);

23

see also In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (absolute

24

judicial immunity applies even when it is alleged that “the action

25

was driven by malicious or corrupt motives” or was “flawed by the

26

commission of grave procedural errors”) (citation omitted).

Indeed, under the doctrine of judicial immunity,

Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075.

27
28
5

Judicial immunity is an

1

Here, the Complaint alleges that Judge Fox, in his capacity

2

as a state court judge, is liable for false imprisonment, malicious

3

prosecution, search and seizure, and other torts.

4

because the allegations relate to Judge Fox performing a judicial

5

function,

6

immunity.

7

alleged, must be dismissed on immunity grounds.

he

is

unquestionably

entitled

to

Accordingly,

absolute

judicial

Therefore, the claims against Judge Fox, as currently

8
9

D.

The Complaint Violates Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8

10
11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint

12

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

13

pleader is entitled to relief in order to give the defendant fair

14

notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

15

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation and alteration omitted).

16

claim must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

17

Rule 8 can be violated when “too much” or “too little” is said.

18

Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013).

Each

19
20

Here, the Complaint does not comply with Rule 8.

Plaintiff

21

does not clearly and concisely identify the nature of each of his

22

legal claims, the specific facts giving rise to each claim, and

23

the specific conduct of each Defendant or Defendants against whom

24

each claim is brought.

25

statement of Plaintiff’s claims.

26

repetitious and largely incoherent statements.

27

Complaint fails to provide a simple, concise and direct statement

28

of each violation alleged.

The Complaint is not a short and plain
Rather, it consists of rambling,
Consequently, the

Thus, the Complaint fails to provide
6

1

Defendants with fair notice of the claims in a short, clear and

2

concise statement.

3

the Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend.

See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Accordingly,

4
5

The

Court

has

The

addressed

Court

notes

the

obvious

that

there

deficiencies
may

be

of

the

6

Complaint.

additional

7

deficiencies, i.e., it appears that some or all of the claims may

8

be barred by the applicable statute of limitations or by the

9

doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

The Court

10

advises Plaintiff that he should attempt to correct all noted

11

deficiencies if he chooses to file a First Amended Complaint.

12
13

IV.

14

CONCLUSION

15
16

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with

17

leave to amend.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,

18

he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum

19

and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint.

20

amended complaint, the Plaintiff shall cure the defects described

21

above.

22

allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted

23

in the original complaint.

24

shall be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation

25

“First Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this

26

action.

27

complaint in this matter.

28

OMIT ANY CLAIMS THAT ARE BARRED BY A LACK OF JURISDICTION OR ON

Plaintiff

shall

not

include

new

defendants

In any

or

new

The First Amended Complaint, if any,

It shall not refer in any manner to any previously filed
PLAINTIFF IS SPECIFICALLY ADVISED TO

7

1

IMMUNITY GROUNDS, unless an exception exists or those defects can

2

be corrected.

3
4

In

any

amended

complaint,

Plaintiff

should

confine

his

5

allegations to those operative facts supporting each of his claims.

6

Plaintiff

7

Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain statement

8

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

9

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil

10

rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of

11

which is attached.

12

identify the nature of each separate legal claim and make clear

13

what specific factual allegations support each of her separate

14

claims.

15

concise and to omit irrelevant details.

16

Plaintiff to cite case law, include legal argument, or attach

17

exhibits at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff is also advised

18

to omit any claims for which he lacks a sufficient factual basis.

is

advised

that

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to keep his statements
It is not necessary for

19
20

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file

21

a First Amended Complaint or failure to correct the deficiencies

22

described above, will result in a recommendation that this action

23

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court

24

orders

25

Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue

26

this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of

27

Dismissal

pursuant

in

to

Federal

accordance

with

Rule

of

Federal

28
8

Civil

Rule

of

Procedure

Civil

41(b).

Procedure

1

41(a)(1).

A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s

2

convenience.

3
4

DATED:

March 6, 2018

5
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10

THIS ORDER IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN WESTLAW, LEXIS, OR
ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9