O'Dell et al v. Ikeda et al

Filing 3

ORDER STRIKING AND SEALING DOCUMENTS Containing Improper Material and Granting Leave to Re-File Within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/11/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN O’DELL SR., et al.,

12
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

DALE IKEDA, et al.,

16

Case No. 1:17-cv-00496-DAD-EPG
ORDER STRIKING AND SEALING
DOCUMENTS CONTAINING
IMPROPER MATERIAL AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO RE-FILE
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)

Defendants.

17

Plaintiffs Brian O’Dell, Sr. and Candice O’Dell, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint on

18

April 7, 2017 (ECF No. 1), along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis for Candice

19

O’Dell (ECF No. 2). The Court has reviewed the Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma

20

Pauperis and finds that the filings contain private identifying information concerning minors.1

21

Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

22
(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or
paper filing with the court that contains an individual's social-security number,
taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known
to be a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the
filing may include only:

23
24
25

(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayeridentification number;

26
27
1

28

To the extent that the Plaintiffs intended to file Complaint initiating this action under seal, that request is denied
due to the absence of good cause. See CAED-LR 141(a).

1

(2) the year of the individual's birth;

1

(3) the minor's initials; and

2

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Furthermore, the Local Rules of this Court provide that:
(a) Privacy In General. Except as set forth below, pursuant to the Judicial
Conference Policy on Privacy and Electronic Access to Case Files, and the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, effective April 16, 2003, when
filing documents, counsel and the Court shall omit or, where reference is
necessary, partially redact the following personal data identifiers from all
pleadings, documents, and exhibits, whether filed electronically or on paper,
unless the Court orders otherwise:
(i) Minors' names: In criminal actions, use the minors' initials; in civil
actions use initials when federal or state law require the use of initials, or
when the specific identity of the minor is not necessary to the action or
individual document;

13

(ii) Financial account numbers: Identify the name or type of account and
the financial institution where maintained, but use only the last four
numbers of the account number;

14

(iii) Social Security numbers: Use only the last four numbers;

15

(iv) Dates of birth: Use only the year;

16

(v) Home addresses in criminal actions only; use only the city and state;
and

12

17
18
19
20
21

(vi) All other circumstances: Redact when federal law requires redaction.
CAED-LR 140.
Plaintiffs are advised that they are held to the same standards as attorneys in filing
documents with the court. All rules apply equally to them irrespective of their pro se status. In

22

particular, they are required to refer to any minors in their pleadings using the minors’ initials.

23

The Court will thus seal and strike Plaintiffs’ filings from the docket and provide them leave to

24

re-file appropriate pleadings.

25

With respect to the substance of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, however, Plaintiffs are advised

26

that a preliminary review of the Complaint indicates that the Complaint may not state a claim

27

for which the Court can offer relief. The Complaint alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but

28
2

1

to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must allege a violation of a right secured by the

2

Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was

3

committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

4

Private parties do not act “under color of state law” when they pursue unlawful detainer actions

5
6
7
8

in court. Cutlip v. Deutche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. for Harborview Mortg. Loan Trust PassThrough Certificates 2007-7, No. 15-CV-01345-BLF, 2015 WL 1928257, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 27, 2015) (“[M]erely resorting to the courts and being on the winning side of a lawsuit
does not make a party a co-conspirator or a joint actor with the judge.”), quoting Dennis v.

9
Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28 (1980); Brambila v. Reo Bay Area, LP, No. C 11-03202 SI, 2011 WL
10
11
12
13
14

4031142, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2011) (“Use of the unlawful detainer process standing alone
does not transform acts by a private party into acts under color of law for purposes of § 1983.”)
Before re-filing their pleadings, Plaintiffs should carefully consider their options and
should only re-file their complaint if they believe that can allege facts sufficient to state a claim

15

against each defendant they name. If Plaintiffs decide that they do not wish to re-file their

16

complaint, they should so inform the Court by filing a notice indicating that they wish to

17

dismiss their case.

18

In accordance with Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby

19

STRIKES the filings (ECF Nos. 1, 2) from the docket and directs Plaintiffs to re-file the

20

documents in manner that complies with the rules of this Court within 14 days. For the

21

protection of the minors, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to place the filings (ECF Nos. 1,

22

2) under seal.

23

Failure to follow the directives of this order will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

April 11, 2017

/s/

26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3