(PS) Peters v. Ervin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAITLIN NICOLE PETERS, No. 2:23-cv-00684-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 CHARLES ERVIN, ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Caitlin Peters, proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the 19 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable 20 to pay such fees). Plaintiff’s affidavit makes the required financial showing, so plaintiff’s request 21 will be granted. 22 However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not 23 complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 24 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 25 seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal 26 court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United 27 1 Actions in which a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 1 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 I. Legal Standards 3 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 4 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). Prior to dismissal, the court is 5 to tell the plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure––if it 6 appears at all possible the defects can be corrected. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be 8 given. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 9 Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading be “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the 10 court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 11 entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 12 alternative or different types of relief.” Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (overruled on 14 other grounds) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was 15 adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”). A complaint fails to state a claim if it 16 either lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to allege a cognizable legal theory. 17 Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). 18 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 19 assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 20 action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When considering 21 whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the 22 well-pleaded factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and construe 23 the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 24 (1986). The court is not, however, required to accept as true “conclusory [factual] allegations that 25 are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint,” or “legal conclusions merely because 26 they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th 27 Cir. 2009). 28 ///////////////// 1 II. Analysis 2 A. Challenges to search and arrest warrants in pending criminal case 3 Plaintiff challenges the search and arrest warrants used during her arrest and prosecution 4 in a pending state court criminal proceeding.2 (ECF No. 1 at 5.) However, federal courts may 5 not interfere with ongoing state criminal, quasi-criminal enforcement actions, or in civil “cases 6 involving a state's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts,” absent 7 extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971). Abstention is 8 proper regardless of whether the applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. 9 See Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) (“When a state criminal prosecution has 10 begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 11 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such an action would have a substantially 12 disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 13 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Younger abstention applies to actions for damages as it does 14 to declaratory and injunctive relief). 15 Here, plaintiff’s allegations before this court clearly implicate important state interests, 16 and “involve [the] state's interest in enforcing orders and judgments of its courts.” Sprint 17 Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013). The events at issue are directly related to state 18 criminal proceedings filed on March 30, 2023, and the proceedings were ongoing at the time 19 plaintiff filed the complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff’s search and arrest warrant challenges 20 are the type of claims and relief the state courts afford an adequate opportunity to raise on direct 21 appeal, or via a writ of mandate in the state’s courts. See San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 22 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1095 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 Accordingly, Younger abstention is required here and the complaint must be dismissed based on 24 plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted. See Rivera v. Gore, 25 2 The case takes judicial notice that case no. 23-CR-0027, filed March 30, 2023, and in which 26 Caitlin Nicole Peters is named as a defendant, is currently pending before the Superior Court of California, County of Sierra. U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 27 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts may take notice of federal and state court proceedings if 28 those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue). 1 No. 3:17-CV-02225-WQH-NLS at *6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) (sua sponte dismissing pretrial 2 detainee's § 1983 claims requesting the “dismissal” of an ongoing criminal proceeding and the 3 “reduction of the bail” on Younger abstention grounds). 4 B. Claims involving plaintiff’s state child custody proceedings 5 Plaintiff’s additional allegations concern her state child custody proceedings. Plaintiff lost 6 custody of her children following their removal in August 2018. (ECF No. 1 at 24, ¶ 106;) (id. at 7 27, ¶ 151.) It appears that plaintiff alleges that the court clerks “delayed” the filing of her appeal 8 and rejected the filing as untimely. (Id. at 28.) Plaintiff also states that her P.O. box was changed 9 by an “unknown” person. (Id.). Plaintiff’s allegation that the clerks “delayed” the appeal is 10 unclear and does not amount to a cognizable claim. In any amended complaint, plaintiff should 11 explain how she came to the conclusion that the clerks “delayed” the filing. To the extent 12 plaintiff seeks to challenge the timeliness of her custody determination appeal, plaintiff must do 13 so via state court proceedings, as these claims do not present a federal question. 14 C. Brody Smith is not a plaintiff and must be removed from the docket 15 Pages 12-22 of the complaint do not allege harms suffered by plaintiff, but rather to 16 plaintiff’s boyfriend, Brody Smith.3 (ECF No. 1 at 12-22.) In some places in the attachment to 17 plaintiff’s complaint she references Mr. Smith as a plaintiff. (See, eg. Id. at 15: “Brody James 18 Smith (Plaintiff 2).)” However, Mr. Smith did not sign the complaint, has not submitted an IFP 19 application, and has not paid the $402 filing fee, and therefore is not a plaintiff in this action. See 20 e.g., Anderson v. California, No. 3:10-cv-02216-MMA (AJB), at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010). 21 Accordingly, Brody Smith must be dismissed and removed from the docket. 22 D. Leave to amend 23 Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will grant leave to file an amended 24 complaint. If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the new pleading shall be captioned 25 “First Amended Complaint,” shall include the current case number, and shall be filed within 28 26 27 3 To the extent plaintiff seeks to allege harms that occurred to Brody Smith, plaintiff lacks standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Further, as plaintiff is not 28 an attorney, she cannot represent Mr. Smith in this action. 1 | days of this order. Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other 2 | filing in order to make plaintiff's first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that 3 || an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 4 Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff 5 || determines that she is unable to amend his complaint in compliance with the court’s order at this 6 || time, she may alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims without prejudice 7 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28 days of this order. 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Brody Smith is DISMISSED from this case. The Clerk of Court shall remove his 1] name from the docket; 12 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 13 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days from the date 14 of this order, plaintiff shall file either (a) an amended complaint in accordance with 15 this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice; and 16 4. Failure to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the 17 required deadline will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 18 | Dated: October 3, 2023 □□ I / dip Ze 19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 21, pete.0684 22 23 24 25 26 27 28