Clemons v. Anderson et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 29 Motion to Intervene; denying 29 Motion to Quash; granting 24 Motion to Dismiss; denying 25 Motion to Dismiss (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

JOHN LEROY CLEMONS,

Case No. 15-cv-02966-NJV

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

10
11

DON ANDERSON, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff, John Leroy Clemons, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against multitudinous

14
15

Defendants. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint

16

(Doc. 17). The court granted that Motion, giving Plaintiff until on or before October 21, 2015 to

17

file an amended complaint. See Order of Oct. 1, 2015 (Doc. 19). On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff

18

filed a Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Amend. (Doc. 20). On November 6, 2015, Defendants

19

Tim Celli, Craig Clausen, Officer Cooke, Tim Hobbs, Officer Lenze, Denise Losoloust, Officer

20

Parson, Joan Philippe, and Officer Thompson filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) alleging that the

21

“Complaint is incomprehensible and the limited facts which are discernable do not give rise to a

22

Civil Rights violation.” Defs.‟ Mot. (Doc. 24) at 7. On the same date, Defendants Anderson and

23

Flynn filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) seeking dismissal: (1) on the basis that they are entitled

24

to prosecutorial immunity; (2) on the basis that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment

25

Immunity; and (3) because the Compliant fails to allege any misconduct on behalf of either of

26

these two defendants within the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Defs.‟ Mot. (Doc.

27

25)

28

For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24), with

1

leave to amend and deny the second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) as moot.

2

LEGAL STANDARD

3

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure is to test the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in the complaint. A motion to dismiss

5

may be brought under Rule 12(b)(6) when the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can

6

be granted.

7

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

8

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 “does not require „detailed

9

factual allegations,‟” a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

12

1955 (2007)). Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

13

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

14

alleged.” Id. Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must allege facts

15

that are “enough to raise a right to above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the

16

allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

17

Dismissal of a complaint can be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the

18

lack of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,

19

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a

20

claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most

21

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

22
23

DISCUSSION
The Compliant is not a model of clarity. There are facts contained within the facts section

24

of the Complaint that do not relate to the claims section of the Complaint. The “Claims” section

25

of the Complaint identifies the claims only as “1-3” and then attempts to set forth the claims as a

26

series of paragraphs without identifying when one claim ends and another begins. There is no

27

clear separation of the claims and determining which facts pertain to which claim is impossible.

28

This has led Defendants to attempt to piece together the claims, using the paragraphs contained
2

1

within the claims section and relating them back to the facts section and then guessing as to what

2

the contours of each claim may be and under what legal theory they may have been brought.

3

In addition, from the outset of this case, the court has been concerned that the requests

4

within the Compliant run afoul of the Younger Abstention doctrine. “In Younger v. Harris, the

5

Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that federal courts sitting in equity cannot,

6

absent exceptional circumstances, enjoin pending state criminal proceedings.” ReadyLink

7

Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). The concern for the

8

court has been that the Complaint seeks the court‟s intervention in ongoing state court criminal

9

proceedings.

10

Plaintiff is currently in jail apparently awaiting criminal prosecution. See Ex Parte

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Application (Doc. 11). Parts of the Complaint allege an illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff‟s

12

residence and or property. Reviewing the Complaint, it appears that these allegations may be

13

related to Plaintiff‟s current detention. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, the court

14

inquired of Plaintiff at the status conference of September 29, 2015, as to whether his current

15

detention was related to the allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff stated that they were.

16

Further evidencing that the Younger Abstention should be applied in this case, is

17

Plaintiff‟s Motion to Intervene. Mot. (Doc. 29). In the Motion Plaintiff specifically asks that this

18

court intervene into Plaintiff‟s current criminal proceedings, including asking the court to “quash”

19

the current charges. See (Doc. 29). The Motion also references an illegal search and seizure,

20

including allegations of a failure by police officers to provide Plaintiff a copy of the search

21

warrant at the time it was served. Those facts mirror the allegations in the Complaint.

22

It is clear then, as conceded by Plaintiff, that the Complaint seeks this court‟s interference

23

with the state court‟s ongoing criminal proceedings and as such, those claims must be dismissed

24

pursuant to the Younger Abstention doctrine. However, because all of the claims within the

25

complaint are inseparably intertwined, the court is unable to simply excise the offending claims

26

from the Complaint. Instead, the court must dismiss the entire Complaint, with leave to amend.

27

Plaintiff is cautioned however, that the court will not and cannot entertain amended claims

28

that relate to his current pending criminal charges. Only after the filing of an amended complaint
3

1

can the court fully address the defenses of the two-year statute of limitations and the assertions of

2

immunity raised by Defendants Anderson and Flynn.

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

4

(1) the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed with

5

leave to amend;

6

(2) Plaintiff shall, on or before January 21, 2016, file an amended complaint.

7

(3) the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) filed by Defendants Anderson and Flynn is DENIED

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

as Moot;
(4) the Motion to Intervene (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
Plaintiff is warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with
this Order will result in the dismissal of this action.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2016
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN LEROY CLEMONS,

Case No. 15-cv-02966-NJV

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

DON ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on December 29, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

John Leroy Clemons ID: #41687
4913 Helbush Dr.
Lakeport, CA 95453

21

22

Dated: January 4, 2016

23
24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Robert Illman, Law Clerk to the
Honorable NANDOR J. VADAS
5