Allen v. Matheny et al

Filing 3

ORDER Granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk of Court shall file complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date this order is entered to file his amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/1/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14

LEVERN ALLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHAD RUSSELL MATHENY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00962-PMP-CWH
ORDER
Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (#1) and Screening of
Complaint

15
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

16
17

(#1), filed on June 13, 2011.

18

BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff’s complaint states that on March 24, 2010 his home was raided by the Postal

20

Inspection Service led by supervisor Defendant Shad Russell Matheny. Plaintiff alleges that

21

Matheny had obtained a search warrant to obtain reading and learning software that was allegedly

22

fraudulently ordered online. Plaintiff alleges that the search warrant affidavit was executed in

23

bad faith, and Matheny and/or Defendant Patrick Hardy knowingly fabricated the amount of the

24

orders.1 Plaintiff claims that ICS Merrill hired Defendant Patrick Hardy despite knowing that he

25

was dishonest.2

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff states that he has proof showing that Defendant Hardy lied, but does not attach any evidence in support of
this assertion.
2

ICS Merrill is the investigative services division of Examination Management Services, Inc., a private company.

1

Plaintiff states that during the raid, his front door was knocked down, and his then-

2

pregnant wife was pushed to the floor. Plaintiff states that his wife suffered a miscarriage the

3

same day. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Postal Agent Dan Brubaker charged at him

4

with a drawn weapon and held it at Plaintiff’s temple. Plaintiff then states that he was

5

handcuffed for a total of seven hours during which Defendant Matheny questioned him.

6

Plaintiff’s complaint states that agents never read Plaintiff Miranda warnings, and that when he

7

inquired about his blood pressure medicine and his attorney both requests were denied.

8
9

Plaintiff next alleges that Agent Matheny submitted false information to the District
Attorney’s office that led to charges filed against Plaintiff and his wife.3 Plaintiff contends that

10

Agent Matheny continually discusses the case with members of the community and further

11

requests them to falsify legal documents. Plaintiff alleges that Matheny’s slander has defamed

12

his character and damaged his reputation.

13
14

Plaintiff brings claims of torture, slander, and defamation of character pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

15
16

DISCUSSION
I.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

17

Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to his application and

18

complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Reviewing Allen’s financial affidavit pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. As a result,

20

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is granted.

21

II.

Screening the Complaint
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a

22
23

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to

24

dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which

25

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff who is

26
27
28

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hardy is a private investigator employed by ICS Merrill.
3

The nature and disposition of the charges are not clear from the complaint.

2

1

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be

2

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it appears beyond a

3

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to

4

relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint may be

5

dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual

6

scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). Moreover, “a finding of factual

7

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

8

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.”

9

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a court dismisses a complaint under §

10

1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to how to

11

cure its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could

12

not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

13
14

A.

15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all

Federal Question Jurisdiction

16

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case

17

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the

18

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’”

19

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting

20

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). The

21

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint

22

rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well-pleaded

23

complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face

24

of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. Plaintiff alleges a civil rights violation under

25

42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under this statute invokes the Court’s federal jurisdiction. However,

26

because the Court finds Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under section 1983 (see

27

discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

28
3

1

B.

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil

Diversity Jurisdiction

3

actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000”

4

and where the matter is between “citizens of different states.” Plaintiff asserts damages of

5

$300,000.00 in her complaint. However, Plaintiff states that he is a citizen of Nevada, but does

6

not provide the citizenship of Defendants. The diversity jurisdiction statute requires that to bring

7

a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from

8

each defendant. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998). Because

9

it is unclear if Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states, Plaintiff cannot establish

10

diversity jurisdiction.

11

C.

12

Plaintiff states that Defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To have a

Section 1983 Claim

13

claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that the named defendant (1) acted “under color of

14

state law” and (2) “deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes.”

15

Gibson v. U.S., 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

16

(1988); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

17

Regarding Defendants Matheny and Brubaker, “by its very terms, § 1983 precludes

18

liability in federal government actors.” Morse v. N. Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338,

19

1343 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s allegations against federal actors would properly be styled as a

20

claim pursuant to Bivens. A Bivens action is the federal counterpart of a Section 1983 claim. See

21

Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 396 (1971).

22

A claim under Bivens may be brought by victims of a Fourth Amendment violation by federal

23

officers as well as violations by federal officers of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

24

Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Bivens,

25

403 U.S. at 397; see also Davis v. Passman, 422 U.S. 228 (1979); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14

26

(1980). If Plaintiff intends to bring this kind of claim, he should state what constitutional rights

27

were violated and allege specific facts in support of the claim.

28

Plaintiff brings a Section 1983 claim against Defendant Hardy, an employee of a private
4

1

company. A claim under Section 1983 requires a state action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

2

Hardy acted with federal employees in order to instigate a false investigation against Plaintiff.

3

Thus, Section 1983 does not apply and Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Hardy does not allow

4

for any relief. If Plaintiff intended to bring a claim against Defendant Hardy for contracting with

5

a federal entity and subsequently violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, he will need to do so

6

under Bivens. A Bivens action may be available against Defendant Hardy unless there is another

7

remedy available against the private employee. See Walker v. United States, No. 1:02-cv-05801-

8

AWI-LJO-P, 2007 WL 1577687, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2007). Plaintiff should allege what

9

facts he believes constitutes a Bivens claim, including what constitutional rights Defendant Hardy

10

violated.

11

Plaintiff states that Defendants Matheny and Brubaker are liable for false arrest. “In order

12

to prove false arrest, a plaintiff must show the defendant instigated or effected an unlawful

13

arrest.” Nau v. Sellman, 757 P.2d 358, 360 (Nev. 1988). This claim is governed by state law. At

14

this time, Plaintiff has failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction and thus, the Court may not hear

15

Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims.

16

Plaintiff’s pled claim of defamation against Defendant Matheny and Defendant Hardy is

17

likewise governed by state law.4 Plaintiff has not otherwise established that this Court has

18

subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff can allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter

19

jurisdiction, either through complete diversity or federal question jurisdiction, the Court can then

20

hear Plaintiff’s defamation and false arrest claims through the exercise of supplemental

21

jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

22

Plaintiff summarily alleges a claim for torture against Defendants Matheny and Brubaker.

23

There is no civil cause of action for torture under Nevada law. While these facts may constitute

24

other state law claims, Plaintiff’s complaint as alleged does not state a claim upon which relief

25

can be granted.

26
27
28

4

Plaintiff brings claims of both defamation and slander. However, slander is merely defamation that is an oral
statement. See Nevada Indep. Broadcasting Corp. v. Allen, 99 Nev. 404, 409 (Nev. 1983).

5

1

Plaintiff further named “ICS Merrill” as a defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that

2

the company assisted Postal Service inspectors in instigating a false investigation of Plaintiff that

3

led to criminal charges. A private entity may be liable under Section 1983 if the Court

4

determines that its conduct constitutes a state action. Perez-Morciglio v. Las Vegas Metropolitan

5

Police Dept., 2011 WL 5042029, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011). Again, Plaintiff’s complaint

6

alleges that ICS Merrill violated his rights by aiding federal employees in an investigation. This

7

is not conduct that would constitute state action. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a

8

claim upon which relief can be granted against this Defendant.

9

Plaintiff also specifically mentions the company’s owner. Plaintiff alleges that the owner

10

hired Defendant Hardy despite knowing that he was dishonest. Section 1983 is inapplicable

11

against the owner of ICS Merrill since Plaintiff does not allege any state action. Plaintiff’s

12

complaint could be construed as alleging that the owner is liable for negligent hiring, or even

13

vicariously liable for Defendant Hardy’s state tort actions. If Plaintiff intended to bring these

14

claims against the owner of ICS Merrill, he will need to allege specific facts that constitute such

15

claims.

16

Plaintiff's Complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint in accordance with the above

18

discussion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

19
20

(#3) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the full filing fee of three hundred fifty

21

dollars ($350.00).

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant herein is permitted to maintain this

23

action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the

24

giving of security therefor. This Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not

25

extend to the issuance of subpoenas at government expense.

26
27
28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint
(#1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
6

1

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have

2

thirty (30) days from the date that this Order is entered to file his Amended Complaint, if he

3

believes he can correct the noted deficiencies. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the

4

Court recommending dismissal of this action.

5

DATED this 1st day of February, 2012.

6
7
8

___________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7