Coleman v. Boessenecker ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WENDELL COLEMAN, Case No. 20-cv-01535-JSC 8 Plaintiff, SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF 9 v. COMPLAINT; REQUESTS FOR INTERIM RELIEF 10 MARK BOESSENECKER, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 6 Defendants. 11 12 Wendell Coleman sues 32 Napa County employees and officials for alleged violation of 13 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. 14 (Dkt. No. 6.)1 Having granted Mr. Coleman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see Dkt. 15 No. 8), the Court now screens his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes 16 that the complaint is deficient for the reasons stated below. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 The complaint does not contain a plain statement of facts and allegations.2 It instead 19 consists of a litany of grievances alleging various abuses by Napa County judges, district 20 attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement personnel, corrections officers and staff, probation 21 officers, and “contractors of the court.” (See generally Dkt. No. 6 at 4-14.) The alleged 22 misconduct—including “conspiracy to kidnap, obstruction of justice, criminal threats, criminal 23 libel, fabrication of evidence, kidnapping, false imprisonment, police misconduct, destruction of 24 legal documents, Grand theft, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, false arrest, [and] abuse of 25 power”—spans multiple years and stems from multiple interactions with law enforcement and 26 1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 27 ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 1 multiple court hearings for separate civil and criminal matters. (See id.) 2 Mr. Coleman requests injunctive relief, including: 3  An order “to suspend all proceedings taking place in Napa against [him], and 4 all other persons . . . being illegally detained.” 5  An order “nullify[ing] ALL restraining orders that have included Estelle 6 Coleman.” 7  An order “in support of [Mr. Coleman] exercising article 2 section 4 of the 8 United States Constitution and recogniz[ing] this civil claim to be utilized as 9 cognizable claim for action for citizen arrest and removal from office of ALL 10 members acting under the color of law in association with this [case].” 11  “[A] command . . . to suspend ANY and ALL legal proceedings being 12 performed by any judicial officer in association with the Napa court system.” 13  “[A] command . . . temporarily suspending the powers granted to the Napa 14 police department and sheriff department.” 15 (Id. at 15.) Mr. Coleman also seeks “compensation in the amount of 700 million dollars” from 16 various public entities and “1 million dollars each from all defendants named in this civil action.” 17 (Id.) 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in 20 forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a 21 claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 22 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) 24 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the complaint must allege 25 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 26 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not a “probability requirement” but 27 mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 1 complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic 2 recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial 3 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 4 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 5 When a plaintiff files a complaint without an attorney, the Court must “construe the 6 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 7 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon dismissal, 8 selfrepresented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “to amend their 9 complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 10 amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation 11 marks and citation omitted). 12 DISCUSSION 13 The Court cannot discern a plausible claim for relief, and the complaint appears frivolous 14 to the extent it asserts a far-reaching RICO conspiracy against Mr. Coleman and seeks to 15 “suspend” the powers of the Napa County court system and police department. In the absence of 16 factual allegations setting forth a plausible claim for relief, Mr. Coleman’s complaint fails. 17 Because the underlying complaint fails, the “Request for Ex-Parte Hearing and Immediate 18 Injunction” Mr. Coleman filed in conjunction with his original complaint and the “Revised 19 Injunction Request” he filed with his amended complaint fail as well.3 (See Dkt. Nos. 2 & 5.) 20 Further, the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, bars the preliminary injunctive relief Mr. 21 Coleman seeks. Under the Act: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay 22 proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where 23 necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 24 3 The requests allege, in pertinent part, that Napa County officials and employees have “illegally 25 detained, kidnapped, trafficked, labored, and denied [Mr. Coleman’s]” parental rights. (Dkt. Nos. 2 at 2 & 5 at 3.) Mr. Coleman’s “Revised Injunction Request” asserts that on March 2, 2020, he 26 was sentenced in an underlying state court action to 5 years of probation. (Dkt. No. 5 at 5.) He requests “an immediate suspension” of that sentence, “and review of the trial by the Appellate 27 Court,” as well as an order preventing the victim in that case “from filing additional false 1 The complaint does not support a plausible inference that any of those exceptions apply here. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Coleman’s complaint fails section 1915 review. Mr. 4 || Coleman may file an amended complaint in an attempt to correct the deficiencies identified by the 5 Court within 45 days. The amended complaint must identify Mr. Coleman’s claims and include a 6 || plain statement of facts in support. If Mr. Coleman fails to file an amended complaint within 45 7 days or if the amended complaint still fails to state plausible claims for relief, the Court will issue 8 a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of this action. In light of this Order, the 9 Court STAYS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (see Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiff need not respond to 10 || Defendants’ motion. The initial case management conference scheduled for June 4, 2020 is 11 continued to July 30, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., Courtroom E, 15" Floor in San Francisco. 12 The Court encourages Mr. Coleman to seek free assistance from the Northern □□□□□□□□□ 5 13 Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 14 |} Mr. Coleman can make an appointment in person or by calling (415) 792-8982. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. z 16 Dated: March 27, 2020 ol Jesu et □□ JAQ@QUELINE SCOTT CORL 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 WENDELL COLEMAN, 7 Case No. 20-cv-01535-JSC Plaintiff, 8 9 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 MARK BOESSENECKER, et al., Defendants. 11 a 12 . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 13 District Court, Northern District of California. 14 That on March 27, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(es) of the attached, by 15 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 16 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(es) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Z 18 19 || Wendell Coleman T-3 20 PO Box 376 Newcastle, CA 95658 21 22 Dated: March 27, 2020 23 24 Susan Y. Soong 25 Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 By: 28 Ada Means, Deput¥ Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY