(PC) Spearman v. Hillberg

[7] 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 REGINALD E. SPEARMAN, No. 2:23-CV-0093-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RONALD W. HILLBERG, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 . Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 20 governmental entity, officer, or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 21 This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated when the action was initiated even if 22 the litigant was later released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 856 23 F.3d 1281 , 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) 24 is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short 27 and plain statement of the claim” that demonstrates the pleader’s entitlement to relief. Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Therefore, it is necessary to express claims simply, concisely, and directly. See 1 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). 2 These rules are satisfied if the complaint provides enough information to the defendant about the 3 plaintiff’s claim and the grounds on which it is based. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 , 1129 4 (9th Cir. 1996). For plaintiff’s claims to be considered, plaintiff must allege overt acts by specific 5 defendants with at least some degree of particularity to satisfy the standard to support the claims 6 alleged. The Court cannot proceed with the complaint if the allegations are vague and conclusory 7 because plaintiff failed to meet this standard. Additionally, the Court cannot conduct the 8 screening required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. [9] 10 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 11 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s original complaint. See ECF No. 1. The 12 following business entities are named as defendants: (1) RAD, LLC; (2) J&A Property 13 Management, LLC; (3) Prodigy Management, LLC; (4) Jimenes Construction & Landscaping, 14 LLC; (5) Tri-Mark, LLC; (6) HomeSmart-TRG, LLC; (7) LoMo, LLC; (8) Tri-Wood, LLC; 15 (9) Sam Berri Towing, LLC; (10) Tot & Carrey, LLC; (11) Black Star, LLC; (12) B.W.O., LLC; 16 (13) White Oak Global Advisors, LLC; and (14) TTYAOVO, LLC. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff 17 names the following individuals as defendants: (1) Ronald W. Hillberg; (2) Mark E. Prescott; 18 (3) N. Daniels; (4) Perry W. Knight; (5) Erica Torrez; (6) Jill Wood; (7) Murphy, California 19 Highway Patrol (CHP) officer; (8) Mark Owls; (9) Peter Phong; (10) Allred, Sacramento County 20 Recorder; (11) Stanislaus County Recorder; (12) Cameron Hayne; (13) Kayla Hayne; (14) Von P. 21 SeSonoy; (15) Deborah Harris; (16) Blaze Carson; (17) Imani Jackson; (18) Maxine Tobin; 22 (19) Angela Gnos; (20) Christopher Melindez; (21) Marco Lopez; (22) Deputy Bandy; 23 (23) DaShon Fields; (24) Alex Bacca; (25) Michael Clark; (26) Anita J. Barton; (27) Allen Yost; 24 (28) Randolph Rothenberg; (29) Susan Schmitt; (30) Cristina Davis; (31) Joshua Allen; 25 (32) Alexana Wright; and (33) Whitney Moore. See id. Plaintiff also names the Sacramento 26 Police Department, “19 Keys of Youtube,” and Potters House Church. See id. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights to property and 2 secure telecommunications. See id. at 4. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants committed 3 identity theft. See id. Plaintiff claims Defendants Ronald W. Hillberg and Mark E. Prescott, 4 who were the administrators and trustees of the Leopold T. Prescott Trust of 2003, breached and 5 violated their fiduciary duties by self-dealing, committing fraud, racketeering, mail theft, and 6 forgery, as well as not providing proper accounting and communication. Id. According to 7 Plaintiff, Defendants have held the trust in limbo because they have failed to, as state law 8 requires, produce a business plan and updates on the assets of the trust. Id. Defendants also have 9 not followed the directions of the trust document, which Plaintiff claims has been proven to be 10 forged after investigation. Id. 11 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Hillberg and Prescott have a co-conspirator, 12 Defendant N. Daniels, who was a former Sacramento Police Department officer who lived across 13 the street from Plaintiff. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Daniels stole Plaintiff’s mail and 14 made a false police report on Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants hacked 15 Plaintiff’s phones, emails, and accounts. Id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant Daniels actively 16 stalked and harassed Plaintiff with the help from Defendants Cameron Hayne and Sam Berri of 17 Sam Berri Towing, who stole Plaintiff’s car and then charged Plaintiff $5,000 for its return. Id. 18 Next, Plaintiff contends that the trust consists of real estate, which Defendant 19 Mark “liquidated via fraud & false accounting.” Id. Plaintiff alleges injury from being defrauded 20 out of millions of dollars, real estate, as well as false imprisonment and defamation of character. 21 Id. Plaintiff asserts that he was “robbed” of his right to secure telecommunication and his right to 22 an accounting for his stocks, bonds, and securities. Id. 23 In his second claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ racketeering, money 24 laundering, wire fraud, offshore banking false charges, false imprisonment, and theft violated 25 Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges money from the trust fund was 26 liquidated via a number of “shell LLC’s” (RAD LLC, nonprofit, J&A LLC, Eric Torrez, Tri27 Mark, LLC, Tri-wood, LLC, Jimenes Construction LLC, Home smart – TRG LLC, Sam Berri 28 Towing/Racing LLC, Tot & Carry LLC, Black Star, LLC) as well as Jill Wood of 5775 Victoria 1 Ave, Riverside CA. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Murphy CA CHP, Mark Owls, Peter 2 Phong, Stanislaus Recorder C.O., Allred Sac C.O. Recorder, Sacramento P.D., Marco Lopez, and 3 Deputy Bandy falsely charged, reported, and imprisoned Plaintiff. Id. Defendant Cameron 4 Hayne allegedly stole Plaintiff’s car, I.D., and forged a false trust with Plaintiff’s documents, 5 which Defendant Hayne’s daughter used to launder funds via a false heir company. Id. 6 Defendant Von P. SeSonoy allegedly forged documents and stole Plaintiff’s mail. Id. Plaintiff 7 claims that a ring lender, Defendant Deborah Harris, stole and washed $80 million of trust funds. 8 Id. Plaintiff adds that Defendants Hayne Motorsport, LLC, and Imani Jackson intercepted 9 Plaintiff’s payment due for his account from the trust using a fake lawyer, Defendant Perry W. 10 Knight of Sopp & Matson, LLP. Id. at 11 In his third claim, Plaintiff alleges that the CHP and Sacramento Police 12 Department violated his constitutional rights by way of harassment, false imprisonment, and 13 invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy. Id. at 6. Plaintiff claims that the Sacramento Police Department 14 targeted Plaintiff at his home and arrested Plaintiff on false charges with conspirator Defendant 15 N. Daniels, a Sacramento Police Department officer and Plaintiff’s neighbor. Id. Plaintiff claims 16 that Defendant N. Daniels is part of a group known as “E.V.C.” which, according to Plaintiff, 17 targets, gaslights, and defrauds people by using law enforcement to stalk, hack, and commit mail 18 theft. Id. Plaintiff does not define what the initials “E.V.C.” represent. Plaintiff does state, 19 however, that the E.V.C. members include Defendants Cameron Hayne, Kayla, Hayne, Sam Berri 20 of Sam Berri Towing, and Sam Berri Racing, which Plaintiff alleges stole his car, documents, and 21 identification. See id. Plaintiff contends that Defendants Sacramento Police Department and 22 Officer Bandy falsely imprisoned Plaintiff and conspired with other E.V.C. members to gaslight 23 Plaintiff and destroy his image. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendants tracked Plaintiff’s 24 location using “WiFi ping & cloud hacking & SMS & call forwarding & SIM cloning.” Id. 25 Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ actions caused him injury by loss of home property, wages, estate 26 securities, and emotional trauma. Id. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 For relief, Plaintiff seeks “payment in full & all estate securities & bonds 2 returned.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff also asks that “each acting party” be charged to the fullest extent of 3 the law. See id. Finally, Plaintiff seeks pain and suffering damages. See id. [4] 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against any named 7 defendant. First, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show how any of the business entities, “19 8 Keys of Youtube,” and Potters House Church are persons acting under color of state law. 9 Second, Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from the same defect as to the individual defendants named 10 in the complaint, other than Defendants Murphy, who is alleged to be a CHP officer, Allred, who 11 is alleged to the Sacramento County Recorder, and Bandy, who is alleged to be a police deputy. 12 As to all defendants, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to link defendants to a violation of Plaintiff’s 13 constitutional or federal statutory rights. Finally, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to sustain 14 a municipal liability claim as against Defendant Sacramento Police Department. 15 A. Persons Acting Under Color of State Law 16 To state a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that (1) action was done by 17 a person acting “under color of state law” and (2) the action resulted in the deprivation of a 18 constitutional right or federal statutory right. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178 , 19 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)); see also Balistreri v. 20 Pacifica Police Dept., 90 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Non-state actors are generally not liable 21 under §1983 because the statute expressly requires that a person acting “under color of state law” 22 must violate another person’s federal constitutional rights to be liable to the injured party. See 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983 ; see also Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991); Simmons v. 24 Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). A person acts under color 25 of state law when they “exercise such coercive power or has provided such significant 26 encouragement that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.” Blum v. Yaretsky, [27] 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982). 28 / / / 1 Here, Plaintiff names a number of business entities as well as “19 Keys of 2 Youtube” and Potters House Church as defendants. Plaintiff also names a number of individuals 3 as defendants. Except as to Defendants Murphy, Allred, and Bandy, Plaintiff has failed to include 4 any allegations indicating that these defendants were acting under color of state law. Plaintiff 5 will be provided an opportunity to amend. 6 B. Causal Link 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the plaintiff must allege an actual 8 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See 9 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 10 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 11 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 12 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 13 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 14 concerning the involvement of defendants in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. 15 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific 16 facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. 17 See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 18 Here, Plaintiff’s rambling complaint asserts facts alleging some kind of theft 19 concerning a trust. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged facts to show how any defendant 20 participated in a violation of rights guaranteed to Plaintiff by federal statute or the United States 21 Constitution, as required to sustain claims under § 1983. Again, Plaintiff will be provided an 22 opportunity to amend. 23 C. Municipal Liability 24 Municipalities and other local government units are among those “persons” to 25 whom § 1983 liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 26 Counties and municipal government officials are also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. 27 at 691; see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local 28 government unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials 1 under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 2 397, 403 (1997). Thus, municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of 3 the actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the 4 plaintiff must allege that the constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or 5 custom of the municipality. See id. 6 In this case, Plaintiff names the Sacramento Police Department as a defendant. 7 Plaintiff has not, however, alleged facts to indicate any custom or policy of the municipality 8 which resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. Plaintiff will be 9 provided leave to amend. [10] 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 Because the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by amending the 13 complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 , 1131 14 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that an amended complaint supersedes the original 15 complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff 16 amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading to make Plaintiff's amended 17 complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be completed without 18 reference to any prior pleading. See id. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 19 2000) (en banc). 20 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 21 conditions complained of have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 22 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must specify how each named defendant is involved and 23 establish an affirmative link or connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed 24 violation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 25 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Because the complaint does not appear to state a cognizable claim, if no amended 2 || complaint is filed within the time allowed, the Court will issue findings and recommendations 3 || that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a first amended 5 || complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. [6] 7 | Dated: March 14, 2024 Svc 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [10] 1]