Pagtakhan et al v. Burlingame Police Department et al

Filing 35

ORDER FOR AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY-BASED CLAIMS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MARLON E. PAGTAKHAN,

11
12
13
14

No. C 08-2188 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOR AMENDMENT OF
CONSPIRACY-BASED CLAIMS

v.
JOHN DOE, detective; et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

The court attempted to review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

17

noted apparent statute of limitations and res judicata problems, and required Pagtakhan show

18

cause why the claims against the Wrestling Defendants should not be dismissed from this action

19

as time-barred and/or under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (Docket # 33.)

20

Pagtakhan filed a response to the order to show cause. (Docket # 34.)

21

There are pleading deficiencies with regard to the conspiracy allegations that result in the

22

amended complaint failing to state a claim against anyone based on a conspiracy theory. Those

23

same pleading deficiencies also impact the court's ability to evaluate Pagtakhan's response to the

24

order to show cause.

25

The amended complaint alleges in various places there was a conspiracy afoot against

26

Pagtakhan, and Pagtakhan attempts to hold the Wrestling Defendants and others liable based on

27

such a conspiracy. Of present concern to the court are Pagtakhan's attempts to plead claims

28

about acts and omissions that occurred after his August 11, 2007 arrest. His cause of action #

1

33 is for false prosecution that appears to be based at least in part on a conspiracy theory, cause

2

of action # 34 is for civil conspiracy to defame Pagtakhan, and cause of action # 37 is for a

3

conspiracy to deprive Pagtakhan of his civil rights. For example, in cause of action # 37,

4

Pagtakhan describes a number of unfavorable things that happened and then calls them the

5

product of a conspiracy.

6

liability because the conspiracy allegations are mere conclusions. Conclusory allegations of a

7

conspiracy which are not supported by material facts are insufficient to state a claim. See

8

Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); Woodrum

9

v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989).

The amended complaint does not adequately allege any conspiracy

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

"'A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted

11

action, intend to accomplish some unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another which

12

results in damage.'" See Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999)

13

(citation omitted). A civil plaintiff "'must show that the conspiring parties reached a unity of

14

purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds in an unlawful

15

arrangement.'" Id. (citation omitted). A conspiracy is not separate cause of action under

16

California law and instead is a way to hold additional persons liable for torts committed by

17

others. See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co., 24 Cal. 3d 773, 784 (Cal. 1979). Similarly, a

18

conspiracy is not itself a constitutional tort under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but "may enlarge the pool

19

of responsible defendants by demonstrating their causal connections to the violation." Lacey

20

v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

21

Leave to further amend the amended complaint will be granted so that Pagtakhan may

22

attempt to plead conspiracy-based liability for the claims. Pagtakhan must file an amendment

23

to his first amended complaint to attempt to provide non-conclusory allegations sufficient to

24

state a claim based on conspiracy-based liability. As to each conspiracy he alleges existed, he

25

should explain the role of each defendant in the conspiracy.

26

particularity who made an agreement with whom, when the agreement was made, what the

27

agreement was, and what the purpose of the agreement was. He also needs to identify the role

28

of each individual defendant in these conspiracy-based claims. Although the several persons
2

He needs to allege with

1

who were involved with Pagtakhan's wrestling career have been referred to by the court as the

2

Wrestling Defendants for sake of convenience, Pagtakhan's pleading must address the liability

3

of each individual member of that group individually and allege what each person did or failed

4

to do that caused a violation of his rights, and explain the basis for each such person's liability.

5
6

The amendment must be filed no later than February 1, 2013, and should be captioned

7

"Amendment to First Amended Complaint." The amendment may not exceed fifteen pages in

8

length and must be signed by all the plaintiffs. An amendment, as opposed to a second amended

9

complaint, will not supersede the existing amended complaint and instead will be read together

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

with it.

11

conspiracy allegations with prejudice.

12
13

Failure to file the amendment by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3