Mendenhall et al v. Christensen et al

Filing 19

AMENDED ORDER. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 5/3/2017. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2017: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lsS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

JANICE MENDENHALL, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. 16-cv-4232 CRB
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
DIANA CHRISTENSEN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

/

The Court issued an order in this case on December 2, 2016. See Order (dkt. 18). It

17

appears, however, that the order was not served on Plaintiffs. The Court therefore issues this

18

amended order DISMISSING Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”) with leave to

19

amend within 30 days from the issuance of this amended order.

20

Plaintiffs Janice Mendenhall and Mark Cato, proceeding pro se, bring this action

21

against Diana Christensen, Ana Oseguda, Ivan Morales, and Joseph Quartell. Plaintiffs have

22

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See IFP Order (dkt. 6). Pursuant to 26

23

U.S.C. section 1915, the Court dismissed the original complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended

24

complaint which, for the reasons to follow, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

25

I.

26

BACKGROUND
The nature of Plaintiffs’ action is unclear. As before, the FAC is entitled: “Complaint

27

for Civil Rights Violation of Decisions of Commissioner of Social Services Appeals Unit of

28

San Francisco, California” and appears to complain about the denial of state-subsidized
public benefits for families like CalWorks and food stamps. See FAC (dkt. 17) at 1-5. The

1

Plaintiff’s allege a “deprivation of our [First] Amendment Right” to petition “for a

2

governmental redress of grievances,” which they take to mean a right to “make an official

3

complaint to any government body without the fear of that body arresting you or sanctioning

4

you in any way.” FAC at 2. They also allege a deprivation of their Seventh Amendment

5

rights, which they maintain guards against the “establishment of arbitrary courts of justice,

6

where the decision of the judges is subject to the whims and control of the government. Id.

7

They then make the following allegations against each of the four named defendants – all of

8

which they assert violated their civil rights:

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

A.

Allegations Against Defendant Diana Christensen

Christensen refused to release “[i]information [r]elated to eligibility” for state benefits

11

and hung up on Plaintiffs after telling them “I am not supposed to talk to you, if you want to

12

get your money and see your case you must take us to court!” Id. She also made

13

“numer[o]us error” and “intentionally typed [them] into the system.” Id.

14

B.

Allegations Against Defendant Ana Oseguda

15

Oseguda “collaborated” with Christensen in not releasing eligibility information and

16

“stopping access” to their state case. Id. She also participated in “misleading” them during

17

state court proceedings by “stating that these our [sic] Judges when they are retired attorneys

18

for the County.” Id. at 2-3. Finally, she “continue[s] to harass” their family. Id. at 3.

19

C.

Allegations Against Defendant Ivan Morales

20

Morales “slander[ed] [Plaintiffs’] family name within the department of Human

21

Services by label[ing] [their] case a hard case and putting out a statement that Mr. Cato was

22

running from the law without any proof.” Id. He also “abuse[d] his power by doing

23

whatever he wanted” with Plaintiffs’ case in “retaliation” for an undisclosed exercise of First

24

Amendment rights. Id. He did not provide adequate notice or explanation about why their

25

request for retroactive public assistance was denied. Id. These actions, Plaintiffs allege, also

26

violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil

27

Rights Act along with various state laws, which they take to not only prohibit discrimination

28

but also require that people “be treated with courtesy, consideration, and respect.” Id.
2

1

D.

Allegations Against Defendant Joseph Quartell

2

Quartell, a state collection agent, “incorrectly collected funds” from Plaintiffs

3

“without sending an adequate notice to the family.” Id. at 4. Failure to correct these alleged

4

errors caused Plaintiffs “pain and suffering.” Id.

5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

6

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which

7

a party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous

8

or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary

9

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Section 1915 purposes where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. See Castillo v. Marshall,

11

207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs

12

proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is

13

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”

14

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).

15

III.

16

DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power

17

authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

18

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Furthermore, as courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an

19

independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.”

20

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Here, Plaintiffs slap a

21

civil-rights-violation label on what, on the facts alleged, are state law claims. That being so,

22

they have not established federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.

23

To state a claim for a civil rights violation under 18 U.S.C. section 1983, a complaint

24

“must both (1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or

25

statutory law, and (2) allege that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under

26

color of state law.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). To adequately

27

plead the first element, the complaint must identify what constitutional or other federal right

28

each defendant violated, providing sufficient facts to plausible support each purported
3

1

violation. See, e.g., Drawsand v. F.F. Props., L.L.P., 866 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1121 (N.D. Cal.

2

2011) (“Aside from passing references to due process and equal protection, the Complaint

3

fails to allege how [plaintiffs’] constitutional rights were violated and fails to identify each

4

Defendant's role therein.”). Plaintiffs have not done so.

5

For a start, Plaintiffs mistake the right to petition for redress of grievances as right to

6

receive redress. The First Amendment does not “require policymakers to listen or respond”

7

to petitions, let alone that demand is met. Minnesota Bd. for Comm. Colleges v. Knight, 465

8

U.S. 271, 285 (1984). And though they allege retaliation for an undisclosed “exercise” of

9

First Amendment rights, see FAC at 2-3, Plaintiffs give no specifics about their protected

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

speech, let alone provide facts suggesting that the negative outcome of their benefits

11

application was indeed the result of retaliation rather than an official doing his job. See id.

12

As for the Seventh Amendment allegations, that constitutional provision guarantees a

13

right to a jury trial in suits properly brought in federal court. See U.S. Const. amend. VII. It

14

says nothing about how states may or may not organize administrative processes, as Plaintiffs

15

appear to argue. Compare id. with FAC at 2.

16

Under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that they are “qualified

17

individual[s] with a disability” and that the District denied them benefits or services “by

18

reason of” their disability. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir.

19

2001); 42 U.S.C. § 12132. What is more, they must also plausibly allege that they were

20

intentionally discriminated against; naked assertions of nefarious intent will not do. See

21

Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1138; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiffs provide no

22

facts establishing that they are qualified individuals under the statute or that the denial of

23

public benefits had anything to do with their protected status. See FAC at 3.

24

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that they were

25

intentionally discriminated against “on the basis of race, color, or national origin” or, at the

26

very least, that the state used a neutral practice or procedure that has a disparate impact on

27

protected individuals that does not have a legitimate and substantial justification. See 42

28

U.S.C. § 2000d; Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969, 981-83 (9th Cir. 1984). Again, Plaintiffs
4

1

allege nothing close on either score. See FAC at 3.
Finally, as much as the Court would regret Plaintiffs not being treated with “courtesy,

2
3

consideration, and respect,” id., that is not what the Constitution or federal law protects.

4

IV.

5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is DISMISSED with

leave to amend within 30 days of the issuance of this amended order. Plaintiffs are

7

REMINDED that “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed”

8

will result in their case being dismissed with prejudice. Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired

9

Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). For that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

reason, the Court again directs their attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is

11

available on the Court’s website located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiffs

12

may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796,

13

Telephone No. [phone], for free assistance regarding their claims.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: May 3, 2017

16

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5