Kindred v. Menninger ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Case No. 1:20-cv-00255-DAD-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (Doc. No. 2) 14 KIMBERLY MENNINGER, et al., SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 (Doc. No. 1) 17 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”), a detainee at Coalinga State Hospital 21 proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on February 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 1) Concurrent with 22 his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 23 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 24 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the 25 United States Code section 1915(a). Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915(a), 26 and accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 27 /// 28 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standard 2 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 3 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 4 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 5 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 8 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 9 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 11 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 12 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 13 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 15 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 16 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. 17 Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted 18 unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 19 plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 20 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 Plaintiff is a detainee housed at Coalinga State Hospital. He names the following 22 defendants: (1) Kimberly Menninger, Superior Court Judge, Central Division, Santa Ana, 23 California; (2) California District Attorney, Central Division, Santa Ana, California; (3) Kenneth 24 Allen Reed, Defense Attorney, Santa Ana, California; and (4) Wendy Luna, Litigation 25 Coordinator, Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff contends that these defendants knowingly and 26 willfully violated his right to liberty under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 27 States Constitution on August 23, 2019, in Orange County Superior Court. He asserts improper 28 psychological diagnosis and treatment and false incarceration. 1 As to each individual defendant, Plaintiff alleges as follows: 2 Defendant #1, Ms. Menninger, Superior Court Judge did ignore plaintiffs’ constitution rights as well as the California State Law itself involving the matters 3 in plaintiffs’ Notice of Motions and Motions that were filed in her Court. 4 … 5 Defendant #2, California, District Attorney of Orange County, Central Division is/was liable to ensure that plaintiffs’ rights were ensured specifically, in CA 6 Welfare & Institution Code §6605(a) and Civil Code of Procedure §2032.530, Which guarantees every person who is under CA Welf. & Inst. Code §6600 et. 7 seq., that he or she has the right to request for a Defense Evaluator to evaluate him/her annually and that if the individual cannot afford to pay for such service 8 that said service will be provided to him. 9 Defendant #3 Defense Attorney, Kenneth A. Reed of Orange County failed in his duties and obligations to properly defend plaintiff, which included to file Motions 10 and/or to properly defend said motion to the best of his ability as appointed to plaintiffs’ case to represent him. 11 Defendant #4, Ms. Wendy Luna, Litigation Coordinator employed at the 12 California Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga failed to note receiving service of Plaintiffs’ Motions, specifically, the Notice of Motion and Motion, wherein 13 Plaintiff requested a Court Order to Direct the California Department of State Hospital-Coalinga to assist plaintiff in obtaining a proper California Identification 14 Card, which it has done for other patients at the hospital. 15 (Doc. 1 at 4, 7) (unedited text). 16 As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief. 17 IV. Discussion 18 A. Venue for Claims Arising in Orange County, California 19 Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants Menninger, the Orange County District Attorney, 20 and Reed for alleged conduct related to court proceedings in Orange County California. The 21 proper venue for federal claims arising in Orange County is the Central District of California. 22 Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Menninger, the Orange County District Attorney, 23 or Reed should have been filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Court will not screen the claims against Defendants 25 Menninger, the Orange County District Attorney and Reed. 26 Further, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert unrelated claims against unrelated 27 parties in a single action, he may not do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 28 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may 1 bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same 2 transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons 3 questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th 4 Cir. 1997). The “same transaction” requirement refers to similarity in the factual background of a 5 claim. Id. at 1349. Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court 6 review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the 7 joinder of multiple claims against the same party. Thus, Plaintiff may not bring in one case all 8 claims he has arising from different incidents involving different defendants. In other words, 9 Plaintiff may not bring claims against Defendants Menninger, the Orange County District 10 Attorney and Reed related to Plaintiff’s detention/evaluation and a claim against Defendant Luna 11 related to obtaining a California Identification Card. Unrelated claims involving multiple 12 defendants belong in different suits. See George, 507 F.3d at 607. 13 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 14 As to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Luna, that claim fails to comply with Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 16 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 17 factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 18 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation 19 omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 20 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 21 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; 22 see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 23 Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claim against 24 Defendant Luna. As a basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it 25 happened, how Defendant Luna was involved or how her actions or inaction resulted in any harm. 26 Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. If 27 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of his claim, and 28 must include factual allegations identifying what happened, when it happened and how the 1 defendant was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 2 C. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 3 Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a discrimination 4 claim against Defendant Luna by invoking both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 5 Plaintiff’s purported discrimination claim is secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the 6 Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits unjustified discrimination by 7 federal actors. See Consejo de Desarollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 8 F.3d 1157, 1170 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2007) (Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause subjects the federal 9 government to constitutional limitations that are equivalent of those imposed on the states by the 10 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a 11 Fifth Amendment claim. 12 To the extent Plaintiff is pursuing an Equal Protection claim against Defendant Luna, 13 Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state a cognizable claim. The Equal Protection Clause requires 14 that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living 15 Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). An 16 equal protection claim may be established by showing that defendants intentionally discriminated 17 against a plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class, Comm. Concerning Cmty. 18 Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 702-03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 19 F.3d 1071,1082 (9th Cir. 2003), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated 20 differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t 21 of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601–02 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 22 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that he was discriminated against because of his 24 membership in a protected class or that he was intentionally treated differently from other 25 similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding his inability to secure a 26 California Identification Card are not sufficient to state a plausible claim for violation of his 27 Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend this claim to cure the 28 identified deficiencies. 1 V. Conclusion and Order 2 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20 3 and fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Luna. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 4 the Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified 5 deficiencies to the extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 6 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 8 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 9 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 10 be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 11 555 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding 12 new, unrelated claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 13 Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint 14 supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). 15 Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the 16 prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 17 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 19 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 20 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or file a 21 notice of voluntary dismissal; and 22 3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 23 Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order 24 and for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: April 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28