Grant v. U.S. Government
Filing
4
ORDER GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/25/2014. Amended Complaint due within 21 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
O’DEAN M. GRANT,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01618 - --- - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
17
Plaintiff O’Dean Grant initiated this action by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
18
19
a complaint, asserting the United States Government is liable for violations of his civil rights arising
20
under the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
21
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However,
22
because Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support his claims for relief, his complaint is
23
DISMISSED with leave to amend.
24
I.
25
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States
26
District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may authorize the
27
commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a person
28
who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28
1
1
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay the filing fee only if
2
leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1178,
3
1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court has reviewed the application and finds Plaintiff satisfies the
4
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
5
GRANTED.
6
II.
Screening Requirement
7
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and
8
shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the
9
action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . .
10
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A
11
claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
12
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,
13
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
14
III.
15
Pleading Standards
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
16
pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short
17
and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the
18
relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
19
8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less
20
stringent standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).
21
A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and
22
succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, a
23
plaintiff must identify the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
24
U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,
25
26
27
28
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2
1
Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d
2
266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint
pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’
3
4
5
6
7
8
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should
9
assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal
10
conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. Leave to amend a
11
complaint may be granted to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
12
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
13
IV.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff asserts that the Government has attempted “to kill . . . degrade and destroy” him
14
15
because of his faith. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges he has been subjected to “continual harassment,
16
humiliation and persecution – by the FBI and their handlers and informants.” (Id. at 2.) According to
17
Plaintiff, his computer, phone, and car have been tapped; and his body has “been literally invaded by
18
the government, which . . . implanted microchips (transmitters and/or receivers, and whatever else)” in
19
his stomach while Plaintiff was imprisoned. (Id.) Plaintiff explains he had a colonoscopy, and asserts
20
the Government “planted some device(s) into [his] stomach through [his] rectum” during the procedure.
21
(Id.) Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he was “ripped . . . off for more than $60,000 in grant money” by an
22
online university named “Capella: Minneapolis,” which Plaintiff asserts “was set up by the FBI.” (Id.)
Based upon these facts, Plaintiff asserts the Government is liable for violations of his civil rights
23
24
arising under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
25
United States. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.)
26
V.
Discussion and Analysis
27
As an initial matter, amendments to the Constitution do not create direct cause of action. Arpin
28
v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (“a litigant complaining of a
3
1
violation of a constitutional right does not have a direct cause of action under the United States
2
Constitution”). However, claims for violations of rights protected by the amendments may be brought
3
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), which “is a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
4
conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). Specifically, Section 1983 provides:
5
6
7
8
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.
9
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a
10
federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state
11
law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Williams v. Gorton, 529 F.2d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1976).
12
A plaintiff must allege a specific injury was suffered, and show causal relationship between the
13
defendant's conduct and the injury suffered. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
14
Thus, Section 1983 “requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the
15
defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff.” Chavira v. Ruth, 2012
16
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53946, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2012). An entity or individual deprives another of a
17
federal right “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to
18
perform an act which he is legally required to do so that it causes the deprivation of which complaint
19
is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In other words, “[s]ome culpable
20
action or in action must be attributable to defendants.” See Puckett v. Corcoran Prison - CDCR, 2012
21
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52572, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012).
22
A.
23
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no
24
law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” U.S. Const.
25
amend. I. In addition, “[t]he First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against
26
individuals for speaking out.” Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 2010).
27
28
Violation of the First Amendment
From the few facts alleged, it is unclear whether Plaintiff asserts his rights to the free exercise
of religion were impeded while he was incarcerated, or whether Plaintiff asserts he has been retaliated
4
1
against for speaking about his religion. Further, how “the FBI and their handlers and informants”
2
caused Plaintiff to suffer “continual harassment, humiliation and persecution.” Rather, Plaintiff offers
3
only his conclusions. Without more, the Court is unable to determine that the individuals were acting
4
under the color of law or how Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were violated. Consequently,
5
Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the First Amendment is DISMISSED.
6
B.
Violation of the Fourth Amendment
7
The Fourth Amendment provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. . .
8
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...” U.S. Constitution, amend. IV.
9
Plaintiff asserts his rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated by the Government placing a
10
microchip in Plaintiff’s body and tapping his computer, phone, and car. However, Plaintiff’s claims
11
that the Government implanted a device in him can best be described as frivolous. See Alexander v.
12
United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60127 at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2013) (finding “allegations
13
regarding the implanted tracking device and the ongoing conspiracy can only be described as fanciful,
14
delusional, or wholly incredible,” and dismissing the plaintiff’s claim under the Fourth Amendment
15
without leave to amend). To the extent Plaintiff asserts his computer, phone, and car have been tapped
16
by the Government, he does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine the actions were taken
17
unlawfully. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for violations of the Fourth Amendment is DISMISSED.
18
C.
Violation of the Fifth Amendment
19
Plaintiff asserts his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment has been violated by the
20
Government. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from
21
deprivations of life, liberty, or property from the federal government without due process of law. U.S.
22
Constitution, amend. V; Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 462 (1942). The clause guarantees both
23
procedural and substantive due process, protecting individuals against the deprivation of liberty or
24
property interest by the government. A procedural due process claim “has three elements: (1) a liberty
25
or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government,
26
and (3) lack of process.” Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993). A
27
substantive due process claim requires a plaintiff to “show both a deprivation of liberty and conscience-
28
shocking behavior by the government.” Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
Here, Plaintiff merely alleges that he has a right to due process and the “right[] to redress the
1
2
government” when he feels the Government has violated his rights. (Doc. 1 at 2.) However, Plaintiff
3
does not explain how his due process rights have been infringed upon by any Government official.
4
Given the lack of factual support, Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his due process rights under the
5
Fifth Amendment is DISMISSED.
6
D.
7
Plaintiff asserts the Government is liable for a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1
8
Violation of the Sixth Amendment
at 2.) Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment,
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance
of counsel for his defense.
9
10
11
12
13
U.S. Constitution, amend. VI. However, Plaintiff does not allege any facts that to support his claim for
14
a violation of the Sixth Amendment. As a result, this claim is DISMISSED.
15
E.
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
16
Like the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from the
17
deprivation of liberty or property interests by the government. However, the Fourteenth Amendment
18
protects only claims against the state government. Further, a due process claim is not triggered by a
19
private actor, but only by actions of the state government. See Jackson v. Metropolitan, 419 U.S. 345,
20
349 (1974) (“private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment” and a
21
private actor may only be held liable for a constitutional violation if there is a “sufficiently close nexus
22
between the State and the challenged action of the [private actor] . . .”). Because Plaintiff names only
23
the United States Government as a defendant and the facts alleged do not support a due process claim
24
against the state, his claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED.
25
VI.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a)
26
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claims must be related, and be based on the same
27
precipitating event, or a series of related events alleged against the same defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
28
18(a). The Seventh Circuit explained, “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A
6
1
against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated
2
claims against different defendants belong in different suits. . .” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
3
(7th Cir. 2007).
4
Here, Plaintiff attempts to state multiple unrelated claims. For example, Plaintiff’s claims for
5
violations of the First Amendment do not appear to be based upon the same precipitating event as his
6
claims for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not complied with
7
Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8
VII.
Conclusion and Order
9
Here, there are few facts presented by Plaintiff to support his claims for relief. For example,
10
there are no facts regarding when Plaintiff has been subjected to harassment, how Plaintiff has been
11
harassed, or by whom. Rather, Plaintiff offers only his conclusions that his civil rights have been
12
violated by the Government. Without additional facts, the Court cannot find Plaintiff’s claims are
13
sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8. Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the Court is
14
entitled to disregard allegations that are facially implausible and, quite frankly, as currently pleaded, the
15
Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint to be implausible.
16
However, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one opportunity to file an amended complaint
17
that sets forth facts sufficient to support his claims for relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-
18
49 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is
19
absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment”).
20
The amended complaint must reference the docket number of assigned to this case and must be
21
labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the
22
original complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814
23
F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to
24
the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Thus, once Plaintiff files an amended complaint,
25
Plaintiff’s original complaint will not serve any function in the case. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll
26
causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are
27
waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.
28
1981)); accord. Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
7
1
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;
3
2.
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
4
3.
Within twenty-one days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order; and
5
6
4.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed for failure
to obey a court order.
7
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 25, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?