Shavers v. Murphy

Filing 18

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND U.S MARSHALS TO SERVE DEFENDANT WITH SUMMONS AND THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on May 30, 2017. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/30/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (igS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CYNTHIA SHAVERS,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10

MICHAEL MURPHY,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-05421-DMR
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER
DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ISSUE SUMMONS AND U.S
MARSHALS TO SERVE DEFENDANT
WITH SUMMONS AND THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Cynthia Shavers filed a complaint along with an application to proceed in forma

13

pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint. [Docket No.

14

10]. The court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissed the complaint and the amended

15

complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 12.] Plaintiff thereafter filed a second amended

16

complaint, which the court dismissed with leave to amend. [Docket Nos. 15, 16]. Plaintiff has

17

now filed a timely third amended complaint (“TAC”). [Docket No. 17 (“TAC”)]. For the reasons

18

contained herein, the court finds that the TAC sufficiently states a claim for the purposes of 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court orders the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the U.S.

20

Marshals to serve the summons and the TAC on Defendant.

21

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

22

The court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case filed without the payment of the

23

filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or

24

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

25

against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). To make

26

the determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts assess whether there is an arguable

27

factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy,

28

745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a complaint where it is based solely

1

on conclusory statements, naked assertions without any factual basis, or allegations that are not

2

plausible on their face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); see also Erickson v.

3

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam).

4

Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, such as here, courts must

5

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

6

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or

7

her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured

8

by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted),

9

superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

2000) (en banc); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
II.

BACKGROUND
In the TAC, Plaintiff asserts a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant

Officer Michael Murphy (“Murphy”) of the Oakland Police Department. According to Plaintiff,
Murphy signed the affidavit for the arrest warrant which resulted in her false arrest on March 24,
2015, knowing that the District Attorney (“DA”) had declined to press charges against Plaintiff.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Murphy was intentionally harassing her. Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages including $150,000.00 in punitive damages, and compensation for pain and
suffering and lost wages. TAC at 8.
Although the court’s review of the TAC is limited to its allegations, the court briefly
summarizes the allegations in Plaintiff’s prior pleadings to provide background for the allegations

20
against Murphy in the TAC.
21
In her prior pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that an incident occurred in December 2014 which
22
23
24
25
26
27

involved family members and others. She attempted to intervene, and was subsequently arrested
and placed in custody. Plaintiff was thereafter released on $30,000 bail.
According to the TAC, following the December 2014 arrest, Plaintiff contacted the DA
numerous times in January 2015 attempting to exonerate herself. TAC at 4. The DA eventually
declined to press charges. TAC at 5.
Then, on March 23, 2015, a number of officers appeared at Plaintiff’s sister’s house with

28
2

1

the intention of arresting Plaintiff for violation California Penal Code Section 13991. TAC at 5.

2

Plaintiff spoke with the officers because she was concerned about the arrest warrant and was out

3

on bail. Id. Plaintiff declined to give her address to the officers until she contacted her bail bonds

4

person. Id. Plaintiff then contacted the DA and the Sheriff’s Office about the arrest warrant. Id.

5

The DA mentioned that Plaintiff’s case was “rejected” and that no further information was needed

6

from Plaintiff. TAC at 6.
On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff got off work and was driving toward the highway on her

7
8

way to another job when she was pulled over by five cars of officers. Id. at 6. The officers asked

9

Plaintiff to state her name and told her to exit her car. Id. The officers handcuffed Plaintiff and

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

searched her car. Id. The officers said they had an arrest warrant, so Plaintiff asked to see it. Id.
The officers, however, did not present the arrest warrant to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was then taken
to Santa Rita County jail without an arrest warrant. Id. Because the officers did not have an arrest
warrant, the officers made a telephone call to have the arrest warrant faxed over to the jail. Id.
Plaintiff was then booked, but thereafter posted $80,000.00 bail. Id.
On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff appeared in court, but the judge never called Plaintiff’s case.

15
16
17

TAC at 6. Plaintiff and the bailiff then called the DA’s office. TAC at 6-7. The DA’s office
repeatedly told Plaintiff and the bailiff that Plaintiff’s cases were rejected and that the office did
not know why Plaintiff was arrested on March 24, 2015. TAC at 7.

18
19

III.

DISCUSSION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

20
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia
21
Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
22
23
24
25

source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
conferred. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege two elements: 1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States was violated and 2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

26
27
1

28

The court has searched for, but cannot locate California Penal Code Section 1399, so it remains
unclear what the underlying Penal Code violation was.
3

1

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cty., 811 F.2d

2

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

Applying these principles, Plaintiff has now provided enough facts to allege a Section

4

1983 claim. Liberally construing the allegations in the TAC, Plaintiff alleges that her Fourth

5

Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures was violated by Murphy when he

6

signed an arrest warrant, knowing the DA’s office declined to press charges against Plaintiff,

7

which resulted in Plaintiff’s false arrest on March 24, 2015. Accepting these allegations as true,

8

Plaintiff appears to state a cognizable claim for a Fourth Amendment violation. See Mendocino

9

Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1295 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that under Franks
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he

11

“recklessly or knowingly includes false material information in, or omits material information

12

from, a search warrant affidavit,” otherwise known as a “Franks claim”) (citations omitted); see

13

also Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (police officers can held be liable

14

under section 1983 for a Franks claim “if they made false reports to the prosecutor, omitted

15

material information from the reports, or otherwise prevented the prosecutor from exercising

16

independent judgment”).
Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a 1983 claim for violation of the Fourth

17
18

Amendment to allow the TAC to be served on Murphy.

19

IV.

20

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the court finds that the TAC sufficiently states a claim for relief

against the defendant. The court directs the Clerk of the Court to issue summons, and orders that

22

the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy

23

of the complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, Plaintiff's affidavit and this

24

order upon the Defendant.

R NIA

______________________________________
yu
na M. R
dge Don
uDonna M. Ryu
J
United States Magistrate Judge
ER
C
N
F
4
DI
TO
FO

H

LI

RT

28

ERED

O ORD

IT IS S

NO

27

Dated: May 30, 2017

A

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

25

S

21

UNIT
ED

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

S T RIC