Vela v. The State Bar of California ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PASTOR ISABEL VELA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01638-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Pastor Isabel Vela (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 18 this civil rights action on November 22, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before 19 the Court for screening. 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 22 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 23 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 28 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 1 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 3 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 6 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 7 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 8 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 9 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 10 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 11 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 12 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants State Bar of California and Investigator 13 Emerly Cruz asserting violations of the First Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Fourteenth 14 Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also 15 alleges a violation of 22 U.S.C. § 6401. (Doc. 1 at p. 3.) 16 In relevant part, Plaintiff alleges that in approximately the month of August, she was 17 forwarded a letter from the State Bar restricting her from her pastoral duties. Plaintiff claims that 18 the separation of Church and State allows her to freely counsel as a pastor in any capacity without 19 the infringement of the State. As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, claiming 20 that the alleged violations have hindered the trust between pastor and families, suppressing their 21 right to counsel, advocate, and protect. Plaintiff claims mental and emotions duress, suppression 22 of freedom of speech, asserting that “by not allowing our Freedom of Religion and [Exercise] 23 Clause our families have been left in a moment of further duress, confusion and menal [sic] 24 harm.” (Id. at p. 6.) Plaintiff asserts a right “to counsel, guide, mentor, advocate, and represent 25 and be the voice for the voiceless and those under duress.” (Id.) She also claims a right to be a 26 church attorney, not a state attorney. (Id.) 27 III. Discussion 28 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, fails to state 1 a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and attempts to seek relief from a 2 defendant that is immune from such relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, the Court will 3 allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to the extent she can do so in good faith. 4 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 7 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 8 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 9 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 11 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 12 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 13 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of her claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 14 complaint does not include sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff 15 does not clearly state what happened, when it happened, or who was involved. Plaintiff’s 16 complaint also does not explain the nature of her claims. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, 17 it must include factual allegations related to her claims that identify what happened, when it 18 happened, and who was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 19 B. Linkage Requirement 20 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 21 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, 22 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 23 redress. 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 25 the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See 26 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The 27 Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional 28 right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s 1 affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the 2 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 3 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to link Defendant Emerly Cruz to any wrongful conduct. 4 In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must link each individual defendant to a specific act or 5 omission that violated Plaintiff’s rights. 6 C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 7 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring suit against the State Bar of California, she 8 may not do so. The State Bar enjoys Eleventh Amendment protection and is entitled to 9 immunity from suit in federal court. Kohn v. State Bar of California, 87 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir. 10 2023). 11 IV. Conclusion and Order 12 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, fails to state 13 a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and attempts to seeks monetary relief from 14 a defendant who is immune. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff an 15 opportunity to amend her complaint to cure these deficiencies to the extent she is able to do so in 16 good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 18 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 19 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 20 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 21 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 22 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 23 “buckshot” complaints). 24 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 25 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 26 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 27 Local Rule 220. 28 /// 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 3 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 4 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or file a 5 notice of voluntary dismissal; and 6 3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, then 7 the Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court 8 order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: December 27, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:23-cv-01638

Filed Date: 12/27/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024