Hankins et al v. Stanislaus County Child Protective Services

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiffs' complaint and GRANTING 30 days leave to amend. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/15/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

STEPHANIE N. HANKINS and GARY D.
REED,

8

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01740-LJO-SKO
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS'
COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 30 DAYS
LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11

(Docket No. 1)
STANISLAUS COUNTY CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

12
13

Defendant.

14
/
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephanie N. Hankins and Gary D. Reed ("Plaintiffs"),

18

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendant Stanislaus County Child

19

Protective Services ("Defendant"). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. 1)

20

is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend.

21

II.

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that on October 23, 2012, social workers from Defendant

23

Stanislaus County Child Protective Services ("Defendant") "removed Kameron Michael Reed

24

Hankins from the custody of his parents with the assistance of the Oakdale Police Department."

25

(Doc. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiffs assert that the social workers removed the child "without a warrant, and

26

without exigent circumstances." (Doc. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiffs state that the social workers "did not

27

inform the parents where they were taking the baby" and "did not al[l]ow the parents to have the

28

baby taken to a family member." (Doc. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiffs "pray for the safe return of the minor

1

child," "[c]ompensation for pain and suffering" in the amount of $100,000, and any additional

2

compensation the Court deems "appropriate." (Doc. 1, p. 1.)
On December 3, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma

3
4

pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

5
6

III.
A.

DISCUSSION

Screening Requirement

7

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen

8

each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty

9

is untrue or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may

10

be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may

12

be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez

13

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

14

B.

Legal Standard for Screening

15

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

16

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must

17

contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual

19

allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

20

accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

21

U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

22

'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "[A]

23

complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short

24

of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

25

U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a

26

complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals

27

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

28

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
2

1

C.

Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Claim

2

Plaintiffs' one-page complaint sets forth that on October 23, 2012, Kameron Michael Reed

3

Hankins, a "baby," was taken from his parents1 by Stanislaus County Child Protective Services

4

without a warrant and without exigent circumstances, and with the assistance of the Oakdale Police

5

Department. (Doc. 1, p. 1.) No other facts are pled.

6

Plaintiffs' brief, cursory complaint fails to identify any federal Constitutional right or federal

7

law under which Plaintiffs are seeking relief. To the extent that Plaintiffs are seeking to address

8

purported violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such claims must be premised on

9

a violation of the Constitution or other federal rights. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th

10

Cir. 2009). A properly pled complaint must provide, in part, a "short and plain statement" of

11

Plaintiffs' claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Paulsen v. CNF,

12

Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009).

13

Due to Plaintiffs' sparse factual pleadings and failure to identify any specific federal right or

14

law that was violated, it is "very difficult to discern what precise claims plaintiff[s] actually wish[]

15

to raise, and which factual allegations support those claims." Futrell v. Sacramento Cnty. Dep't. of

16

Health & Human Servs., No. 2:10-CV-2424 JAM KJN, 2011 WL 666503, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14,

17

2011) (dismissing a complaint against Child Protective Services with leave to amend due to pleading

18

deficiencies). To remedy these problems, Plaintiffs need to "clearly identify the claims that [they]

19

wish[] to pursue and provide succinct and coherent factual allegations supporting each claim."

20

Futrell v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty., No. 2:10-CV-2425 JAM KJN, 2011 WL 666494, at

21

*2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) (dismissing a case with leave to amend allegedly arising from the taking

22

of minor children by Child Protective Services)

23
24

D.

Amended Complaint Must Be Complete in Itself Without Reference to Any Prior
Pleading

25

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

26

LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to amend the deficiencies of the

27
1

28

Although the Court assumes that Plaintiffs are the parents of the minor child, that fact is not actually pled or
established in the Plaintiffs' complaint.

3

1

complaint. If Plaintiffs choose to file a first amended complaint, it should contain an explanation

2

of which federal rights or laws were allegedly breached, how those breaches occurred, and set forth

3

facts establishing the basis of Plaintiffs' claims.

4

Plaintiffs are advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. See

5

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended

6

complaint must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading." Local

7

Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Rule 220. Once Plaintiffs

8

file an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

9

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

10

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint or fail

11

to cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed

12

with prejudice.

13

IV.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend; and

16

2.

Plaintiffs SHALL file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of

17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

service of this order.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
ie14hj

January 15, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4