Williams v. Jurdon et al
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1 ); THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/14/2017. (Lafata, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
AKHEEM D. WILLIAMS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00860-LJO-MJS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
(ECF NO. 1)
PATRICK JURDON, et al.,
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Akheem D. Williams proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20
complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is before the Court for
21
screening.
22
I.
Screening Requirement
23
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the
24
complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a
25
complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are
26
legally "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,"
27
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
28
1
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
2
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .
3
the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5
II.
Pleading Standard
6
Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,
7
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
8
Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
9
Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for
10
vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94
11
(1989).
12
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
13
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
14
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state
15
law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d
16
1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
17
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
18
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
19
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
20
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
21
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
22
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
23
that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere
24
possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are
25
accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
26
///
27
///
28
2
1
III.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
2
Plaintiff complains of acts that occurred during his encounters with law
3
enforcement officers in Hanford, California. He names the following police officers as
4
defendants: (1) Patrick Jurdon, (2) Lerry Leeds, (3) Jonathan Rivera, (4) Steven Sitter,
5
(5) Adams, and (6) Martinez.
6
His allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
7
On February 5, 2017, Plaintiff had an encounter with Defendants Sitter, Adams,
8
and Martinez. Although the pleading is somewhat unclear, it appears that Defendant
9
Sitter claimed to have seen Plaintiff driving on Holt Avenue, then stopped Plaintiff at
10
Plaintiff’s home on the pretext of inquiring about a hit-and-run accident. Sitter claimed
11
that a witness reported seeing Plaintiff and his car involved in the accident. However,
12
there was no hit-and-run witness; this story was used to “strong arm” Plaintiff and to
13
frame him. Sitter could not have seen Plaintiff driving because Plaintiff was at home. (It
14
was Super Bowl Sunday). Plaintiff was racially profiled, subjected to an unlawful search
15
and seizure, and falsely arrested on DUI charges by Sitter, Martinez, and Adams, and
16
his vehicle was impounded. This conduct violated Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth
17
Amendment rights and also constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.
18
On February 21, 2017, officers were called to Holt Street on allegations by a
19
neighbor of Plaintiff that Plaintiff had engaged in animal cruelty. Plaintiff was bitten by a
20
pet dog and put the dog over his fence to protect himself and school children who might
21
be passing by. Plaintiff explained these circumstances to Defendant Jurdon.
22
Nonetheless, Plaintiff was arrested. Officers Jurdon, Rivera, and Leeds falsely claimed
23
that the dog was injured, his legs were “missed [sic] up,” and he almost drowned. There
24
was however no water behind Plaintiff’s house on that date. The police were wearing
25
body cameras but did not turn them on when they examined the dog. This conduct
26
violated Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and constituted false
27
imprisonment, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
28
3
1
Finally, Plaintiff was “stalked” on multiple occasions by Defendants Jurdon and
2
Leeds. The officers would pass by his house and flash their lights on his house or sit
3
outside. This behavior constitutes racial profiling.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages, and “protection”
4
5
from the defendants.
6
IV.
Analysis
7
A.
Abstention
8
It is unclear whether Plaintiff is presently facing charges in relation to the above-
9
described incidents. To the extent he is, this Court must abstain. Under principles of
10
comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal
11
proceedings except under special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);
12
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the
13
applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781
14
F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) ( “When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the
15
Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983
16
action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a
17
substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); Gilbertson v.
18
Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention applies to actions for
19
damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). Younger abstention is required
20
when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve
21
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to
22
raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,
23
457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th
24
Cir. 1994).
25
Under these principles, the Court will abstain from interfering in any ongoing state
26
proceeding. The Court therefore will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. In
27
the event no proceedings are pending, Plaintiff may amend his complaint and so state.
28
4
1
B.
2
It also is unclear whether Plaintiff has been convicted and sentenced in relation to
3
any of the charges at issue in this case. To the extent he has, his section 1983 claim is
4
barred absent invalidation of the conviction:
5
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that
relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a
state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district
court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction
or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed
unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Heck Bar
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff has been convicted in relation to either of
the incidents addressed in his complaint, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to
amend. Again, if Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should state the status of any state court
proceedings arising from these incidents. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal
standards applicable to what appear to be his intended claims, in the event he chooses
to amend and is permitted to proceed.
C.
Fourth Amendment
Plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search and seizure. The
nature of this claim is somewhat unclear. Plaintiff does not describe any search executed
by the arresting officers and it is unclear whether Officer Sitter entered Plaintiff’s home.
Plaintiff also claims he was arrested on false charges.
27
28
5
1
In general, the Fourth Amendment bars a warrantless search of or entry into a
2
residence unless the officers have probable cause and are confronted with exigent
3
circumstances. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980); see also LaLonde v.
4
County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2000).
5
A traffic stop that is not based on reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth
6
Amendment and can form the basis for a section 1983 claim. See Haynie v. County of
7
Los Angeles, 339 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2003). “Reasonable suspicion supported by
8
articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot will sustain an investigative stop.” Id.
9
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7
10
(1989).
11
An arrest without probable cause likewise violates the Fourth Amendment and
12
gives rise to a claim for damages under section 1983. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533
13
F.3d 1010, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008). “Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have
14
knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of
15
reasonable caution to believe an offense has been or is being committed by the person
16
being arrested.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Lopez,
17
482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007)). While conclusive evidence of guilt is not required,
18
“[m]ere suspicion, common rumor, or even strong reason to suspect are not enough” to
19
establish probable cause. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
20
D.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
21
The Ninth Circuit has recognized “a clearly established constitutional due process
22
right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was
23
deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-
24
75 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Costanich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101,
25
1111-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (relying on Devereaux to hold that a state investigator “who
26
deliberately mischaracterizes witness statements in her investigative report also commits
27
a constitutional violation”). To state such a claim, Plaintiff must point to evidence that
28
6
1
supports at least one of the following two propositions: “(1) Defendants continued their
2
investigation of [Plaintiff] despite the fact that they knew or should have known that he
3
was innocent; or (2) Defendants used investigative techniques that were so coercive and
4
abusive that they knew or should have known that those techniques would yield false
5
information.” Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076.
6
E.
7
Plaintiff claims a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violation on the basis
8
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
of racial profiling.
9
The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be
10
treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439
11
(1985). An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant
12
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's membership in a
13
protected class, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), Lee v. City of
14
Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated individuals were
15
intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state
16
purpose, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); see also Lazy Y
17
Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of
18
Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008). “The Constitution prohibits selective
19
enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.” Whren v. United States,
20
517 U.S. 806, 814 (1996).
21
F.
State Law Claims
22
The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in any civil
23
action in which it has original jurisdiction, if the state law claims form part of the same
24
case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “The district courts may decline to exercise
25
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has
26
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The
27
Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . .
28
7
1
the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383
2
U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
3
Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff may proceed on any federal claims, the
4
Court cannot presently exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. 28
5
U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805
6
(9th Cir. 2001). The Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards applicable to what
7
appear to be his intended claims, in the event he chooses to amend.
8
i.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
9
Under California law, the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress
10
are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing,
11
or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s
12
suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation
13
of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. Corales, 567 F.3d at
14
571. Conduct is outrageous if it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually
15
tolerated in a civilized community. Id. In addition to the requirement that the conduct be
16
intentional and outrageous, the conduct must have been directed at Plaintiff or occur in
17
the presence of Plaintiff of whom Defendant was aware. Simo v. Union of Needletrades,
18
Industrial & Textile Employees, 322 F.3d 602, 622 (9th Cir. 2003).
19
ii.
False Imprisonment
20
Under California law, false imprisonment is the “‘unlawful violation of the personal
21
liberty of another.’” Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141 F.3d 1373, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998)
22
(quoting Asgari v. City of Los Angeles, 15 Cal.4th 744, 757 (1997)). “There are two
23
bases for claiming false imprisonment: imprisonment pursuant to a false arrest and
24
unreasonable delay in bringing the arrested person before a judicial officer.” Estate of
25
Brooks v. United States, 197 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999). The elements “‘of false
26
imprisonment are: (1) the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person,
27
(2) without lawful privilege, and (3) for an appreciable period of time, however brief.’”
28
8
1
Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Easton v.
2
Sutter Coast Hospital, 80 Cal. App. 4th 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2000)).
3
V.
Conclusion and Order
4
The Court is unable to conclude that is has jurisdiction over the claims as
5
presently pled. The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
6
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he
7
must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
8
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff should
9
carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on curing the deficiencies set
10
forth above.
11
Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
12
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended
13
complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
14
1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any
15
function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint,
16
each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The
17
amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer
18
to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
19
Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although accepted as
20
true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the
21
speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
22
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice;
24
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a
25
first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
26
order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and
27
28
9
1
3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal,
2
the Court will recommend the action be dismissed for failure to comply with a
3
court order and failure to state a claim.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 14, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?