Williams v. California Highway Patrol et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Complaint filed by Robert Lawrence Williams. Amended Complaint due by 3/2/2015. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/22/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-03969-JCS (PR)

12

v.
13
14

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
et al.,

15

ORDER DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND

Defendants.

16

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff, a Nevada state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil rights

18
19

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against the California Highway

20

Patrol (“CHP”) and two of its officers. After reviewing the complaint pursuant to

21

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended

22

complaint on or before March 2, 2015.1

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Compl. at 4.) The magistrate judge,
then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been served or
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th
Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prisoners action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because they had not been
served and therefore were not parties).

DISCUSSION

1
2

A.

Standard of Review

3

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

4

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

5

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

7

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a

8
9

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

12

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

13

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

14

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

15

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

16

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

17
18

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

19

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

20

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

21

B.

Legal Claims

22

Plaintiff alleges that on September 6, 2012, CHP Officers R. Adams and J. Salaun

23

pulled his vehicle over for speeding, arrested him, and seized his car, which has not been

24

returned to him. It is not clear whether plaintiff contests the validity of the traffic stop, his

25

arrest, the seizure of his vehicle, or the CHP‟s continued retention of the vehicle, or all

26

four. Because it is not clear what claims he is pursuing, the complaint will be dismissed

27

with leave to amend.

28
2

1

If plaintiff contests the validity of the traffic stop or arrest, he must show that no

2

conviction resulted from the arrest, or that any resulting conviction or sentence is void. In

3

order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or

4

for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or

5

sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence

6

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

7

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal

8

court‟s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–487

9

(1994).

10

If plaintiff contests the seizure and withholding of his vehicle, he may raise a claim

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures. In

12

addition to unlawful seizures, an unreasonably long retention of a person‟s property by the

13

state may raise Fourth Amendment concerns. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109,

14

124 & n.25 (1984) (destruction of small amount of seized powder to test for contraband

15

was reasonable); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709–710, 103 (1983) (ninety-

16

minute seizure of luggage at airport, exacerbated by failure of agents to inform respondent

17

where they were taking luggage, unreasonable). In such cases, the individual‟s interest in

18

possession must be balanced against the government‟s interest in retaining the property.

19

United States v. Sullivan, 753 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).

20

In order to state a claim that the continued retention is unreasonable, plaintiff must

21

state in his amended complaint what efforts he has made to obtain his vehicle and why

22

they were unsuccessful. He must also allege how Officers Adams and Salaun are

23

responsible for the continued retention of his vehicle. At present, it appears that they only

24

seized it, not that they are responsible for the continued holding of the vehicle. Plaintiff

25

must allege specific facts regarding what defendants are at fault and why they are at fault.

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint on or before March 2, 2015. The first amended complaint must
3

1

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (14-3969 JCS (PR)) and the

2

words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. It must address all deficiencies

3

discussed above. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous

4

complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes

5

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

6

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior

7

complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

8

order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff.

9

It is plaintiff‟s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court‟s orders in a timely fashion or ask

12

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this

13

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2015
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

16
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

ROBERT LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

Case No. 14-cv-03969-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

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 1/22/2015, 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.

16
17
18

Robert Lawrence Williams ID: 1118862
Northern Nevada Correctional Center
P.O. Box 7000
Carson City, NV 89702

19
20
21

Dated: 1/22/2015

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

27
28
5