Isaac Montgomery v. Fresno County Police Department et al
Filing
5
ORDER as follows: 1) Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would state a claim, within thirty (30) days from the date of service o f this order; 2) If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint "First Amended Complaint" and refer to the case number 1:18-cv-00643-LJO-EPG; 3) Alternatively, within thirty (30) days from t he date of service of this order, Plaintiff may notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint, subject to this Court issuing findings and recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending that the case be dismissed for fai lure to state a claim; and 4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the Court will issue findings and recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a Court order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/26/2018. (Rooney, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ISAAC MONTGOMERY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
JERRY DYER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:
(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; OR,
14
15
Case No. 1:18-cv-00643-LJO-EPG
17
18
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE
WISHES TO STAND ON THE
COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
DISTRICT JUDGE CONSISTENT WITH
THIS ORDER
19
(ECF No. 1)
20
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff, Isaac Montgomery, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims against the Fresno County Police
Department and Jerry Dyer, Chief of Police, related to a press conference conducted by
Defendant Dyer. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has screened the Complaint and has determined that
Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review of a pro se complaint to
28
1
1
determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or
2
malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If
3
the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. An action
4
is frivolous if it is “of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact” and malicious if
5
it was filed with the “intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121
6
(9th Cir. 2005). Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the
7
complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
8
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
9
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
10
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
11
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
12
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
13
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
14
at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal
15
conclusions are not. Id. at 678.
16
In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the
17
allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740
18
(1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v.
19
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins
20
v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less
21
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
22
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after
23
Iqbal).
24
25
II.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
The Complaint alleges that on or about February 9, 2018, Dyer, acting in his capacity as
26
chief of police and spokesperson for the Fresno County Police Department, held a press
27
conference. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) During the press conference, Dyer depicted Plaintiff “as a known
28
member of a notorious street gang known for various types of dangerous [and extraordinarily]
2
1
heinous violent crimes.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Dyer’s statements at the press conference
2
(1) deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law; (2) “violated his sworn duties to uphold
3
[and] protect the citizens of his jurisdiction”; (3) breached “his contract to serve [and] protect”;
4
and (4) slandered Plaintiff’s name and defamed Plaintiff’s character. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)
5
III.
DISCUSSION
6
A.
Claims Against Fresno County Police Department
7
“[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its
8
employees or agents.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
9
Instead, a governmental entity may be held liable under § 1983 only where a policy, practice, or
10
custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights.
11
Id. (“Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its
12
lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts
13
the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”).
14
To state a claim for governmental entity liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
15
facts demonstrating “(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which he was
16
deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate
17
indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the moving force
18
behind the constitutional violation.” Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432,
19
438 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; alterations in original).
20
The Complaint does not allege any policy or custom of the Fresno County Police
21
Department that caused Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff has thus failed to state a § 1983 claim against
22
the Fresno County Police Department, and this defendant is accordingly subject to dismissal.
23
24
B.
Defamation Claim
1.
Defamation under § 1983
25
“Damage to reputation alone is not actionable under § 1983.” Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d
26
1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). However, if a government official’s act of defamation results in a
27
plaintiff being deprived of a previously held constitutionally protected right, a plaintiff may be
28
able to state a claim for defamation under § 1983 on the theory that he or she has been deprived
3
1
of a constitutionally protected right without the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth
2
Amendment. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708-09 (1976) (recognizing that a § 1983
3
defamation case might lie where a government official defames a plaintiff and the official’s
4
action “deprived the individual of a right previously held under state law”; “it was the alteration
5
of legal status which, combined with the injury resulting from the defamation, justified the
6
invocation of procedural safeguards”).
7
To state a claim for § 1983 defamation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he was
8
stigmatized by a defamatory statement, and (2) that, as a result of the defamatory statement, he
9
was denied of a federally protected interest without due process of law. Hart, 450 F.3d at 1070
10
11
(quoting Paul, 424 U.S. at 701-02). “This is known as the ‘stigma-plus’ test.” Id. at 1070.
The “stigma-plus” test can be satisfied in two ways. Id. The first way is for a plaintiff to
12
“show that the injury to his reputation was inflicted in connection with the deprivation of a
13
federally protected right.” Id. (citation omitted). The second way is for a plaintiff to “show that
14
the injury to his reputation caused the denial of a federally protected right.” Id.
15
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Dyer stated at a press conference that Plaintiff was an active
16
member of a notorious street gang known for dangerous and extraordinarily heinous violent
17
crimes. Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff has been deprived of a federally protected right in
18
connection with Dyer’s statement without due process of law, or that Dyer’s statements were
19
false. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for defamation under § 1983.
20
21
2.
Defamation under California State Law
Under California law, defamation is defined as the “intentional publication of a statement
22
of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special
23
damage.” Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645 (1999). California Civil Code § 47
24
provides that, with qualified exceptions, “a privileged publication is one made: (a) In the proper
25
discharge of an official duty,” and “(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding,
26
(3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any
27
other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with
28
Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Cal. Civ. Code § 47.
4
1
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Dyer, while acting in his capacity as Chief Commander of the
2
Fresno County Police Department, stated at a press conference that Plaintiff was an active
3
member of a notorious street gang known for dangerous and extraordinarily heinous violent
4
crimes. As alleged, the statement by Dyer would be privileged. See id; Maranatha Corrections,
5
LLC v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 (Ct. App. 2008)
6
(“Because a public official’s duty includes the duty to keep the public informed of his or her
7
management of the public business, press releases, press conferences and other public statements
8
by such officials are covered by the ‘official duty’ privilege. . . .”) (quoting Rothman v. Jackson,
9
57 Cal. Rptr.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1996)).
10
C.
Equal Protection of the Law Claim
11
“‘To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
12
of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or
13
purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.’” Lee v.
14
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
15
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Where the governmental action is ‘facially neutral,’ proof of its
16
disproportionate impact on an identifiable group can satisfy the intent requirement only if it tends
17
to show that some invidious or discriminatory purpose underlies the policy.” Id. (citing Village of
18
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1977)). An equal protection
19
claim can be brought by a “‘class of one,’ where the plaintiff alleges that []he has been
20
intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis
21
for the difference in treatment.” Id.
22
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he is part of a protected class, and that Defendants
23
discriminated against Plaintiff based on his membership in that protected class, or that he has
24
been intentionally treated differently from others who are similarly situated and there is no
25
rational basis for the different treatment. Plaintiff has thus failed to allege a claim for violation of
26
the right to equal protection of the law.
27
D.
Duties to Serve and Protect the Citizens Claim
28
“There is, in general, no constitutional duty of state officials to protect members of the
5
1
public at large from crime.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699-700 (9th Cir.
2
1988). “However, such a duty may arise by virtue of a ‘special relationship’ between state
3
officials and a particular member of the public.”1 Id.
4
Here, Plaintiff alleges that in making the allegedly defamatory statement about Plaintiff at
5
the press conference, Dyer violated his sworn duties to protect and serve the citizens within the
6
jurisdiction, including Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff has not alleged that there is any special
7
relationship between Dyer and Plaintiff and has not, therefore, stated a cognizable claim under
8
§ 1983.
9
IV.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
10
The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims under § 1983 upon
11
which relief may be granted. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to
12
amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide
13
Plaintiff with time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. See
14
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an
15
amended complaint within thirty (30) days, if he chooses to do so.
16
Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for
17
the purpose of changing the nature of this lawsuit or adding unrelated claims. See George v.
18
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
19
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, see
20
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be
21
complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, see Local Rule 220.
22
Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim must be sufficiently
23
plead. Plaintiff should also set forth sufficient facts to establish that the Court has subject matter
24
jurisdiction over his claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or any other law. The amended
25
complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate
26
1
27
28
“To determine whether a “special relationship” exists, a court may look to a number of factors, including (1)
whether the state created or assumed a custodial relationship toward the plaintiff; (2) whether the state affirmatively
placed the plaintiff in a position of danger; (3) whether the state was aware of a specific risk of harm to the plaintiff;
or (4) whether the state affirmatively committed itself to the protection of the plaintiff.” Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 700
(citations omitted).
6
1
2
case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
Plaintiff may also choose to stand on the Complaint, in which case the Court will issue
3
findings and recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending that the case be
4
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
5
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1.
Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by
7
the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would state a claim, within
8
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;
9
2.
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the
10
amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:18-cv-00643-
11
LJO-EPG;
12
3.
Alternatively, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order,
13
Plaintiff may notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint, subject to this Court
14
issuing findings and recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending that the
15
case be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and
16
4.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wishes to
17
stand on the Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the Court
18
will issue findings and recommendations to the assigned district court judge recommending that
19
the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a Court order.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 26, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?