Ehringer v. State of California et al
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/23/16 RECOMMENDING: to DENY as MOOT 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, and that the Clerk be DIRECTED to close this case; ORDERING tha t all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions until the findings and recommendations are resolved. Referred to District Judge Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Washington, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ORION S. EHRINGER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-1955-GEB-KJN PS
v.
ORDER AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
16
Defendants.
17
Plaintiffs Orion S. Ehringer, who proceeds in this action without counsel, requested leave
18
19
to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the allegation of
21
poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
22
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
23
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
24
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
25
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
26
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
27
28
1
This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
1
1
490 U.S. at 327.
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked
2
3
assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
4
action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words,
5
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
6
statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim
7
upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
8
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
9
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
10
at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
11
the court must accept the factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
12
and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
13
U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
14
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
15
(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear
16
that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma
17
pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll
18
v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th
19
Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted when further amendment would be
20
futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
Liberally construed, plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint2 alleges that the Sierra
21
22
County Sheriff’s Department took plaintiff’s son while plaintiff was trying to report a crime, and
23
then tried to make plaintiff “look crazy.” According to plaintiff, he signed his parental rights over
24
to Janet Napolitano to resolve the matter in a timely fashion, but Sacramento County ultimately
25
awarded custody of plaintiff’s son to plaintiff’s mother and gave plaintiff’s son state benefits,
26
even though plaintiff’s son is purportedly an “illegal alien.” According to plaintiff, everyone
27
28
2
After filing his original complaint on August 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
as a matter of course on September 6, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).
2
1
involved in the custody battle, including Janet Napolitano, Sacramento County Child Protective
2
Services, and the family court judge who made the custody determination, lacked integrity and
3
essentially facilitated a kidnapping of plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §
4
14141 and 18 U.S.C. § 242. He requests that the court proceedings take place in the Court of
5
Admiralty on the seabed floor and that “Unlimited Captain John M. Withers be on the SEA-BED
6
council.” (See generally First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 3.)
7
Here, plaintiff’s complaint plainly fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8
As a private citizen, plaintiff has no standing to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, which can
9
only be brought by the Attorney General. See 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b); Gustafson v. City of West
10
Richland, 2011 WL 5507201, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2011); Clarke v. Upton, 2008 WL
11
2025079, at *19 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2008). Plaintiff’s status as a private citizen likewise precludes
12
him from prosecuting a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which is a criminal statute. As such,
13
plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal.
14
If those were the only concerns with plaintiff’s complaint, the court would have been
15
inclined, especially in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, to grant plaintiff leave to amend to attempt
16
to state a different type of claim, such as a potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nevertheless,
17
leave to amend here would be futile for two primary reasons.
18
19
20
First, in light of the bizarre and delusional nature of the allegations outlined above, the
action appears to be patently frivolous.
Second, even if the court set aside its concerns regarding the frivolousness of the action, it
21
would be more appropriate for the court to abstain from hearing claims based on this family law
22
matter. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in district
23
court’s abstention from hearing § 1983 claims arising from a child custody dispute). As the Ninth
24
Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Coats:
25
26
27
28
This case, while raising constitutional issues, is at its core a child
custody dispute. The state courts have already considered the
merits of Coats’ claims and have held that her former husband is
entitled to custody. The district court was aptly reluctant to put
itself in the position of having to review the state courts’ custody
decision. If the constitutional claims in the case have independent
merit, the state courts are competent to hear them. Given the state
3
2
courts’ strong interest in domestic relations, we do not consider that
the district court abused its discretion when it invoked the doctrine
of abstention.
3
Coats, 819 F.2d at 237. Thus, even if plaintiff could state a non-frivolous claim, abstention would
4
be appropriate in this case. To the extent that plaintiff disagrees with the state court custody
5
determination, his proper recourse is to appeal or seek relief from the custody orders/decisions in
6
the state appellate courts, and to pursue any related constitutional claims in the state courts.
1
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
8
1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend.
9
2. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as
10
moot.
11
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
12
In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,
13
discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and
14
recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous
15
motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions
16
until the findings and recommendations are resolved.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)
19
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
20
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
21
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
22
shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the
23
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
24
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
25
Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: September 23, 2016
28
4
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?