(PS) Brick v. Cretchen-McCoy ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRICK, Case No. 2:23-cv-2621-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JENNIFER CRETCHEN-MCCOY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action pro se, alleging that defendants violated his rights in various 18 ways relating to child custody. ECF No. 1 at 6-9. As articulated, the complaint fails to put 19 defendants on notice of the specific claims against them in compliance with federal rules. I will 20 give plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint that better explains his claims. I will 21 also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing 22 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. Id. 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’s claims concern the custody of his children, but the specifics are difficult to 20 understand. His first allegation is that a “child involved in [his] case,” which I take to mean his 21 own child, has been allowed to work under a fictitious identity in violation of child labor laws. 22 ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff cites the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as the basis 23 for this claim, but this act does not provide for federal civil remedies for private individuals. See 24 Taleff v. Taleff, No. 18-CV-1294-AJB-JMA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206408, *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 25 6, 2018) (“The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 3058i, 26 fail to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. . . . Nowhere does the act provide 27 for federal civil remedies by private individuals for alleged child abuse . . . .”). Additionally, 28 while plaintiff broadly alleges that the child in question was allowed by defendants Johl, 1 Cretchen-McCoy, and Miguel-Perez to work in 2023, the specifics of that work and defendants’ 2 action (or inaction) is absent. He alleges only that the child was involved in “money trafficking” 3 to Mexico, but offers no context for this claim. ECF No. 1 at 7. 4 The complaint then shifts to vague complaints about defendants failing to provide him 5 with frequent visitation with his children, implicating more than one child in the complaint for the 6 first time. Id. He claims that defendants Johl and Cretchen-McCoy have made false claims about 7 his “erratic and volatile behavior,” but finishes by claiming that the agency has acted contrary to 8 the interests of the children at issue by “keeping [them] away from their birth and legal parents 9 who reside in Mexico.” Id. at 8. As such, I cannot tell whether plaintiff is advocating for the 10 return of his child or children to Mexico or for additional time with them here. It is further 11 unclear if at least one of the children is his, insofar as he refers to a “father in Mexico.” Id. He 12 does allege that defendants have allowed the children to have contact with an unnamed aunt and 13 the “mother who she is detained from,” but does not allege why these actions were violative of 14 his rights. In addition to requesting one hundred thousand dollars in damages, plaintiff requests 15 that his child, singular, be returned to “Jaqueline Sanchez Gonzalez.” Id. at 9. That individual is 16 not party to this case, however, and plaintiff does not have standing to advocate on her behalf for 17 child placement. 18 At a fundamental level, the complaint fails to apprise the reader of the claims at issue. I 19 cannot tell how many children are implicated in the allegations, whether plaintiff is their 20 biological father, or how each defendant interacted with each child and violated plaintiff’s rights 21 therewith. Accordingly, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, insofar as it does not contain 22 a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In so doing, it fails to give defendants fair notice of the claims against them. 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 25 Plaintiff may amend his complaint within thirty days of this order’s entry. He is advised 26 that an amended complaint will supersede his current one and all claims and relevant exhibits 27 must be contained in the new complaint without reference to its predecessor. If plaintiff fails to 28 file an amended complaint within the deadline, I will recommend this action be dismissed. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 3 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 4 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 5 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 6 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 7 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 8 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 9 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( ie — Dated: _ November 7, 2024 Q_——. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28