Crane v. City of Dunsmuir et al

Filing 9

SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/16/2020. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
JODI L. CRANE,

8

Plaintiff,

9

SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF
COMPLAINT

v.

10

CITY OF DUNSMUIR, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-07010-JSC

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff Jodi Crane brings this civil rights action against the City of Dunsmuir and various

15

city officials. (Dkt. No. 1.) Having granted Ms. Crane’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

16

(see Dkt. No. 4), the Court now screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes

17

that the complaint is deficient for the reasons stated below.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

18

The facts and allegations of the complaint are difficult to discern. It was prepared using

19
20

the form “Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights,” but it does not specify what rights Ms. Crane

21

alleges were violated by the City of Dunsmuir, City Manager Todd Juhasz, Fire Chief Daniel

22

Padilla, and Mayor Jiliana Lucchessi. Instead, under the section regarding which right(s) were

23

violated Ms. Crane alleges: “THE RIGHT TO RUN A BUISSNESS [sic] WITHOUT

24

CURRUPTION [sic], DEFLAMATION[sic] OR ABUSE FROM OFFICAILS<SLANDER [sic],

25

COWERSION [sic] BEETWEEN [sic] POWERS.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.1) Elsewhere, Ms. Crane

26

alleges:

27
28

Record Citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the document.
1

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

(Id. at 4.) In the statement of facts, Ms. Crane alleges that her “CLOTHING STORE WAS

7

DEEMED A DANGER IN HOUR WITHOUT ANY BUILDING INSPECTION,” that her license

8

was “REVOKED,” and “HE REFUSED ME RENNEWL [sic] OF LICENSE BAN SENT

9

MONEY BACK.” (Id.) Ms. Crane also alleges that she was told she would be taken to jail if she
entered her own building, that it was “ALL ILLEGALLY DONE NO PROCEDURE NO DUE

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

PROCESSKEEPING [sic] ME OUT OF LEASED PROPERTY.” Id.
LEGAL STANDARD

12
13

The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in

14

forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a

15

claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

16

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. §

17

1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000).

18

Thus, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

19

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not

20

a “probability requirement” but mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

21

unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations

22

omitted). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels

23

and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550

24

U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

25

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

26

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

27

When a plaintiff files a complaint without being represented by a lawyer, the court must

28

“construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v.
2

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 6

1

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon

2

dismissal, self-represented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave “to amend

3

their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

4

cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal

5

quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

DISCUSSION

7

There are three primary issues with Ms. Crane’s Complaint. First, the Court cannot

8

discern the nature of Ms. Crane’s claims from her complaint. Second, to the extent that she also

9

seeks to state claims on behalf of her business, JUSTINTIME, she cannot do so without counsel.

10

Finally, venue does not appear proper in this district.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A. Failure to State A Claim

12

Ms. Crane appears to allege that the City of Dunsmuir and various city officials interfered

13

with her business. However, it is not clear what civil rights she alleges were violated and what

14

actions were taken which allegedly violated her civil rights.

15

To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint “must both (1) allege the deprivation of a right

16

secured by the federal Constitution or statutory law, and (2) allege that the deprivation was

17

committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067

18

(9th Cir. 2006). To adequately plead these elements, the complaint must identify what

19

constitutional or other federal right each defendant violated, providing sufficient facts to plausibly

20

support each purported violation. See, e.g., Drawsand v. F.F. Props., L.L.P., 866 F. Supp. 2d

21

1110, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Aside from passing references to due process and equal protection,

22

the Complaint fails to allege how [plaintiffs’] constitutional rights were violated and fails to

23

identify each Defendant's role therein.”); Walsh v. Am. Med. Response, No. 2:13-cv-2077 MCE

24

KJN (PS), 2014 WL 2109946, at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2014) (“Before any claims may be found

25

to be cognizable, plaintiffs must separate each specific claim they wish to pursue, identify which

26

defendants relate to each particular claim, and identify the Constitutional right implicated by each

27

claim.”).

28

In addition, while municipalities are “persons” under Section 1983 and thus may be liable
3

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 6

1

for causing a constitutional deprivation, a municipality may not be sued under Section 1983 solely

2

because an injury was inflicted by its employees or agents. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the

3

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 694 (1978). The entity is instead responsible only when

4

execution of a government’s policy or custom inflicts the injury. Id. To impose municipal

5

liability under Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that

6

[s]he possessed a constitutional right of which [s]he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a

7

policy; (3) that this policy ‘amounts to deliberate indifference’ to the plaintiff’s constitutional

8

right; and (4) that the policy is the ‘moving force behind the constitutional violation.’” Oviatt v.

9

Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

389-91 (1989)).
Ms. Crane’s conclusory allegations regarding her right to run her business, the City’s

12

revocation of her license, refusal to issue permits, and denial of “DUE PROCESS” is insufficient

13

to state a claim under Section 1983.

14

B. JUSTINTIME Cannot Proceed Without Counsel

15

In addition, it appears that Ms. Crane seeks to bring this action on her own behalf and on

16

behalf of her corporation JUSTINTIME; however, a corporation cannot proceed pro se (without an

17

attorney). See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership

18

or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.”); see also

19

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)

20

(“a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”). Accordingly,

21

JUSTINTIME cannot proceed with this action without being represented by an attorney.

22

C. Venue

23

Finally, it does not appear that venue is proper in this district. “The district court of a

24

district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it

25

be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have

26

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406. A district court may raise the issue of venue on its own motion.

27

Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for

28

improper venue). In general, venue is proper in:
4

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants
are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought
as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with
respect to such action.

7
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, all of the parties reside in Dunsmuir, California which is in Siskiyou
8
County in the Eastern District of California. Generally, where a case is filed in the wrong venue,
9
the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the case or transfer it to the proper federal
10

court “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

CONCLUSION
12

For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Crane’s complaint fails section 1915 review. Ms.

13
Crane may file an amended complaint within 30 days; her amended complaint must identify her
14
claims and include a plain statement of facts in support and shall allege facts which support venue
15
in this District. Further, to the extent that Ms. Crane seeks to bring an action on behalf of her
16
company JUSTINTIME she is reminded that a corporation cannot be represented by a non17
attorney and thus she will need to find an attorney to represent the corporation or proceed solely
18
on behalf of herself without an attorney.
19

If Ms. Crane does not respond to this Order or if Ms. Crane’s amended complaint fails to

20
state a claim or seeks to plead a claim on behalf of her business JUSTINTIME without an attorney
21
having made an appearance to represent the company, the Court may prepare a report and
22
recommendation recommending that a district judge dismiss her complaint. Likewise, if Ms.
23
Crane fails to plead facts which establish that venue is proper in this district the Court may issue a
24
report and recommendation that the action be dismissed or transferred to the Eastern District of
25
California because venue is not proper in the Northern District of California.
26

The Court encourages Ms. Crane to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal

27
Help Center. Due to ongoing COVID concerns, Ms. Crane can make an appointment for a
28
5

Case 3:20-cv-07010-JSC Document 9 Filed 11/16/20 Page 6 of 6

1

telephone appointment by calling [phone].

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2020

5
6
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6