Porter-heft v. Santa Clara Sheriffs Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DEANNA RAE PORTER-HEFT, Case No. 20-cv-01570-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 SANTA CLARA SHERIFF’S RE DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Re: Dkt. No. 3 Defendants. 13 14 Presently before the Court is plaintiff Deanna Rae Porter-Heft’s application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis (“IFP”). A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action IFP if the 16 court is satisfied that the would-be litigant cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the 17 action. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). Ms. Porter-Heft’s application indicates that her assets and income 18 are insufficient to enable her to pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. Accordingly, her application is 19 granted. 20 However, the Court’s grant of the IFP application does not mean that Ms. Porter-Heft may 21 proceed with this action here. A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing 22 fee whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 24 from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 25 In her complaint, Ms. Porter-Heft seeks $100 million in damages for alleged civil rights 26 violations by unknown and unnamed officers of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department. To 27 the extent Ms. Porter-Heft seeks to assert civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she must 1 States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 2 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A person deprives another of a 3 ‘constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 4 in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 5 causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 6 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978)). 7 Ms. Porter-Heft’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts demonstrating that she has a 8 viable claim for relief. In essence, she alleges that she has been subject to retaliation and 9 harassment by law enforcement. Her complaint, however, simply alleges that while driving on 10 “October 23,” she “was lit up” by an “officer from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Dept. where 11 [she] stopped and complied.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4. In a declaration submitted with her complaint, Ms. 12 Porter-Heft alludes to other alleged law enforcement “pursuit chase[s]” in which spike strips were 13 used, including one such incident in which she “refused to stop.” Dkt. No. 2 at 2. She mentions 14 “[t]hree DUI’s without any evidence” resulting in the revocation of her driver’s license after she 15 “question[ed] the Judge”; “hundreds o[f] 911 calls about [her]” reportedly not connected to any 16 criminal acts; and “[n]umerous beatings and robberies at the hands of all law enforcement 17 agencies.” Id. at 2-3. She seems to suggest that these alleged incidents stem from abuse her son 18 reportedly suffered in Juvenile Hall over twenty years ago or to “2005 FBI/DOJ firings.” Dkt. No. 19 1 at 5; Dkt. No. 2 at 5. 20 These vague and disparate allegations are deficient and do not establish a legally coherent 21 theory of liability establishing the violation of a constitutional right, or that the defendants are 22 liable for the injuries Ms. Porter-Heft claims to have suffered. Accordingly, this Court concludes 23 that the complaint should be dismissed. Absent consent, however, a magistrate judge has no 24 authority to issue a dispositive order. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 25 2017). Therefore, this case shall be reassigned to a District Judge with the recommendation that 26 the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 27 Ms. Porter-Heft may file an objection to this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 submitting objections to May 4, 2020. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: April 2, 2020 4 5 Uroiaga Aa x dy Ma» □□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28