Hoffmann v. Lassen County et al.

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/25/16 DISMISSING 10 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint with LEAVE to AMEND. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to amend the Complaint. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order in a timely manner, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KASEY F. HOFFMANN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0946 JAM AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Although it appears that plaintiff is an inmate

18

in a county jail, this lawsuit does not challenge conditions of confinement. This proceeding was

19

accordingly referred to the magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).

20

The court previously granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and to

21

amend his First Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 7, 9. Plaintiff has now filed a Second Amended

22

Complaint (“Complaint”). ECF No. 10.

23
24

I. SCREENING
Granting IFP status does end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires federal

25

courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon

26

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

27

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the

28
1

1

complaint is frivolous or not, by drafting the Complaint so that it contains a “short and plain

2

statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court,

3

rather than in a state court), as well as a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled

4

to relief (that is, who harmed plaintiff, and in what way). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth

5

simply, concisely and directly. See “Rule 8” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R.

6

Civ. P. 8). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-

7

policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. Forms are also available

8

to help a pro se plaintiff organize the Complaint in the proper way. They are available online at

9

www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

10

A. Screening Standard

11

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

12

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing plaintiff’s Complaint under this

13

standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the Complaint,

14

unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most

15

favorable to the plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S.

16

at 327; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art

17

at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v.

18

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010).

19

However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in the form of factual

20

allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Western

21

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

22

266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001).

23

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers.

24

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may

25

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

26

of the claim which would entitle plaintiff to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th

27

Cir. 2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an

28

////
2

1

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See

2

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

B. The Complaint

4

The Complaint alleges the following facts, which are presumed to be true for screening

5

purposes only. Plaintiff’s son was taken from his mother after she and her boyfriend abused the

6

boy. Complaint at 2. At the time, plaintiff was “detained,” but he had a stable home for his son

7

to live in. Id. Plaintiff was not awarded custody on the grounds that plaintiff was the “alleged”

8

father, and because of his prior drug use. Id. In fact, plaintiff is the boy’s “established”

9

biological father. Id. His parental rights were nevertheless terminated. Id.

10

The Complaint alleges that his parental rights to the child were terminated in violation of

11

the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), plaintiff’s substantive Due Process right to parent his

12

child, and his rights under the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The

13

Complaint further alleges that plaintiff was deprived of his First Amendment right “to raise his

14

child in Indian customs.”

15

The Complaint is not clear about who did what, but as best the court can tell, plaintiff is

16

suing Lassen County, Lassen County Child Services, County Counsel (“Jane Doe”), Grace Poor,

17

Katherin Nielson and D. Nichols (CCCFS, OA III), for improperly terminating his parental rights,

18

in violation of the ICWA, and the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

19

Complaint at 1-2. He is suing Banner Lassen Hospital and William Biggs for failing to instruct

20

plaintiff on what forms to sign when his son was born – thus allowing the other defendants to

21

terminate his parental rights – in violation of the ICWA, and the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments

22

to the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff is also suing William Biggs for ineffective

23

assistance of counsel, and failing to protect his constitutional and ICWA rights. Complaint at 3.

24
25
26

C. Analysis
1. Indian Child Welfare Act
The termination of parental rights to an Indian child may not occur unless certain

27

requirements of the ICWA have been complied with. See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) (requiring

28

exhaustion of remedial and rehabilitative services), (f) (requiring a showing of serious harm).
3

1

The parent of an Indian child may sue in this court to challenge a state court’s termination of his

2

parental rights, notwithstanding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038,

3

1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

The Complaint, however, does not allege that plaintiff’s child is an Indian child. The

5

Complaint is plaintiff’s third complaint, yet it is the first time plaintiff has given any indication

6

that the ICWA may be involved. If this action is about plaintiff’s parental rights in relation to an

7

Indian child, the complaint must state so explicitly.

8

2. Constitutional claims

9
10

The complaint alleges no facts showing that any constitutional right of plaintiff’s was
violated by any of the defendants.

11

3. Remaining claims

12

Plaintiff’s allegation against Banner Lassen Hospital and William Biggs – that they failed

13

to properly instruct plaintiff on what forms to complete – does not state a federal claim against the

14

hospital. To the degree plaintiff alleges that defendants violated plaintiff’s rights to equal

15

protection of the law under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the

16

Complaint fails to allege facts (1) showing that defendants are is subject to those provisions, and

17

(2) plausibly showing that defendants “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate … based

18

upon membership in a protected class.” Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707

19

F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The action against the

20

hospital will therefore be dismissed.

21

Plaintiff’s allegation against William Biggs – that he failed to provide adequate counsel –

22

fails to state a federal claim. The action against Briggs will therefore be dismissed.

23

////

24
1

25
26
27
28

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). In its prior screening order, the court stated that
“‘federal district courts have no authority to review the final determinations of a state court
in judicial proceedings ….’” ECF No. 9 at 3 (quoting Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1009 (1995)). However, the First Amended Complaint, which was
adjudicated by the screening order, made no mention of the ICWA, which provides an exception
to that general rule.
4

1
2

II. CONCLUSION
The Complaint raises the possibility that plaintiff’s rights were violated under the ICWA.

3

However, the Complaint is not tenable in its current form, as it fails to allege that the child

4

involved is an Indian child, and it fails to allege how the termination of plaintiff’s parental rights

5

violated the ICWA. Plaintiff will therefore be granted another opportunity to amend his

6

Complaint.

7

Plaintiff is cautioned that it is not sufficient to allege that the termination of his parental

8

rights violated the ICWA. Rather, he must allege facts that show that particular provisions of that

9

law were violated. Similarly, if plaintiff chooses to amend his constitutional claims, he must

10
11

allege facts that show how particular provisions of the constitution were violated.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that it is not sufficient to list defendants and allege that they

12

all violated his rights. Plaintiff must identify each defendant, and explain how each defendant

13

deprived plaintiff of those specific rights.

14

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Second Amended

15

Complaint (ECF No. 10) is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from

16

the date of this order to amend the Complaint. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order in a

17

timely manner, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed for lack of

18

prosecution.

19

DATED: October 25, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5