(PS) Lewis v. State of CA ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN RAY LEWIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01575-JAM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. ECF No. 2 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 15 Defendants. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 16 SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, OR 17 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 ECF No. 1 19 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff moves to proceed without prepaying filing fees. ECF No. 2. His affidavit 22 satisfies the requirements to proceed in such manner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and so the motion, 23 ECF No. 2, is granted. 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 This complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute requires 26 the court to dismiss any action filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis that is frivolous, 27 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 28 against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 Plaintiff brings this action against six defendants—the State of California, California 20 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mitchell R. Carlson, Judge Anthony Anderson, Stephanie 21 Bridgett, and George Perrault III. ECF No. 1 at 1. His nineteen-page complaint consists largely 22 of legal conclusions and “sovereign citizen”-type ideological rhetoric, and it is difficult to identify 23 the factual basis for his claims.1 As far as I can discern, plaintiff alleges that in April 2021, 24 defendant Carlson, an officer with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, stopped his 25 vehicle and asked him “how the fishing was.” Id. at 14. Carlson also blocked the road, which 26 1 Individuals adhering to a sovereign citizens ideology typically “believe that they are not 27 subject to government authority and employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings.” United States v. Alexio, 28 CR No. 13-01017-JMS, 2015 WL 4069160, at *2 (D. Haw. July 2, 2015) 1 apparently caused plaintiff emotional distress. Id. at 15. At some point, Carlson issued plaintiff a 2 citation for violation of a fishing regulation. Id. at 11, 14. A state court case related to that 3 citation was subsequently commenced in the Shasta County Superior Court. Id. at 15. The case 4 was assigned to Judge Anderson, who ordered plaintiff to pay a fine. Id. at 9, 15-17. Plaintiff 5 now seeks to challenge the citation and resulting fine, alleging that they are part of an 6 unconstitutional scheme to generate revenue. The complaint appears to allege claims for 7 violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 18 U.S.C. § 241, as well as various state law 8 claims. Id. at 6-8, 14, 16. None of these claims can proceed past screening. 9 As an initial matter, the complaint alleges no wrongdoing against defendants Bridgett and 10 Perrault. Consequently, plaintiff fails to state a claim against those defendants. As for the 11 remaining defendants, plaintiff’s allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a claim. 12 Although plaintiff references the Fourth Amendment and alleges that he was not afforded due 13 process, he does not explain how defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Jones v. Cmty. 14 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some 15 degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). 16 He also cannot state a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241, which is a criminal statute that does 17 not provide for a private right of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 18 (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 241 provides “no basis for civil liability”). 19 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claims, which appear to challenge the state court’s imposition of 20 the fine, are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 21 901 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Stated plainly, Rooker-Feldman bars any suit that seeks to disrupt or ‘undo’ 22 a prior state-court judgment, regardless of whether the state-court proceeding afforded the 23 federal-court plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims.”). Moreover, the state of 24 California, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Judge Anderson are entitled to 25 immunity. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Judges 26 are absolutely immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their 27 courts.”); Aholelei v. Dep’t. of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The Eleventh 28 1 Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state 2 officials in their official capacities.”). 3 Plaintiff’s state law claims also cannot proceed past screening. Plaintiff has yet to state a 4 viable federal claim, and the complaint suggests that diversity of citizenship—a requirement for 5 diversity jurisdiction—is lacking.2 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Accordingly, the court lacks 6 original jurisdiction over the state law claims, and there is no basis for exercising supplemental 7 jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to 8 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all 9 claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); Jones, 733 F.2d at 651 (“When federal claims are 10 dismissed before trial, . . . pendent state claims also should be dismissed.”). 11 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 12 action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 13 will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 14 Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 15 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 16 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 17 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 18 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended 19 Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 20 complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 21 Accordingly, it is ordered that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 23 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 24 amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 25 the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 26 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 27 28 2 All parties appear to be citizens of California. ECF No. 1 at 1. 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ May 18, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28