Davis v. Clearlake Police Department

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 DAVID M. DAVIS, Case No. 22-cv-01481-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND 10 CLEARLAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., [11] Defendants. [12] 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights 15 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Clearlake Police Department and three of its 16 employees --- Lieutenant Herman, Sergeant Celli, and Officer Hobbs (collectively “the Clearlake 17 Defendants”), and against Sutter County District Attorney Clint Curry and Sutter County Child 18 Protective Services (“CPS”) (collectively “the Sutter County Defendants”). Plaintiff’s claims 19 against the Sutter County Defendants are improperly joined and are therefore DISMISSED 20 without prejudice to bringing them in their proper venue, the Eastern District of California. His 21 claims against the Clearlake Defendants are DISMISSED with leave to amend because they do not 22 present grounds upon which relief can be granted. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff alleges that after he filed a federal lawsuit against the Clearlake Police 25 Department, Davis v. Clearlake Police Dep’t., et al., No. C 07-3365 EDL (N.D. Cal.), in 2007, the 26 Clearlake Police Department, Lt. Herman, Sgt. Celli, and Officer Hobbs retaliated against him by 27 identifying him in their database as “Anti-Law Enforcement,” which has resulted in Plaintiff’s life 1 notes that in his prior lawsuits, Plaintiff stated that he was designated anti-law enforcement and 2 racially profiled by the Clearlake Defendants in late 2006 and early 2007, before he filed the 2007 3 lawsuit, which was in fact a response to those actions. See Davis v. Herman, et al., C No. 09-0257 4 PJH (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff claims that placement in this database constitutes cruel and unusual 5 punishment; a deprivation of his life, liberty, and property; and a violation of his equal protection 6 rights. (ECF No. 1 at 12-13.) Plaintiff does not allege any incidents in which the Clearlake 7 Defendants endangered him or unlawfully targeted him; he has been in prison for ten years, his 8 release is imminent, and he fears such treatment upon his release. (Id.) 9 Plaintiff further alleges that in 2012, he was arrested for a family domestic matter in Sutter 10 County. (Id.) He made bail on July 9, 2012, and District Attorney Curry “used all entities that 11 were at his disposal” including instructing CPS to place surveillance on Plaintiff’s home. (Id. at 12 13.) A CPS employee observed Plaintiff at his home washing his dog and reported this to Yuba 13 County Police Officer Willings; Plaintiff ran upon seeing the CPS employee; Willings then 14 approached Plaintiff with a drawn weapon; and Officer Willings handcuffed him and stated that if 15 there hadn’t been so many people, he would have shot Plaintiff. (Id.) 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 20 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 22 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by parties without the assistance of an attorney must be liberally 23 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 26 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 27 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 1 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 2 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 3 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, [4] 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 5 state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974 . 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 7 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 8 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). [9] LEGAL CLAIMS [10] A. Improper Joinder [11] Plaintiff improperly joins his claims against the Sutter County Defendants and his claims [12] against the Clearlake Defendants in a single complaint. “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, [13] cross-claim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as [14] it has against an opposing party.” Id. 18(a). When, as here, there are multiple defendants, they [15] may be joined in one action only “if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, [16] or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of [17] transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in [18] the action.” Id. at 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that “multiple claims against a single [19] party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B [20] against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims [21] against different defendants belong in different suits.” Id. “A buckshot complaint that would be [22] rejected if filed by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed [23] him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different [24] transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.” Id. [25] The claims arise from separate and unrelated incidents: the claims against the Sutter [26] County Defendants arise from his arrest in 2012 in Yuba County, whereas his claims against the [27] 1 Enforcement” and a “Black Extremist” beginning in 2006 and 2007. If Plaintiff means to allege 2 that the Sutter County Defendants’ actions were based upon the Clearlake Defendants’ actions, 3 such an allegation is conclusory at best insofar as he alleges no facts indicating a connection 4 between the two. Furthermore, the claims are based upon different legal theories: Plaintiff asserts 5 retaliation, due process, Eighth Amendment, and equal protection claims against the Clearlake 6 Defendants, whereas he appears to allege wrongful arrest and improper threats by the Sutter 7 County Defendants. Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 8 series of occurrences, and do not involve a common question of law or fact. Accordingly, the 9 Court finds the claims improperly joined. 10 Furthermore, the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims against the Sutter County Defendants 11 is the Eastern District of California, which is the district in which Sutter County lies. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 84 . Accordingly, the claims against Defendants Curry and the Sutter County Child 13 Protective Services will be dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in a separate action filed 14 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.1 15 B. Claims Against Clearlake Defendants 16 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the following federal constitutional or 17 statutory rights: “Unlawfully targeted, Unlawfully labelled as Anti Law Enforcement, Unlawfully 18 Labeled as a Black Extremist, Retaliation for Reporting Police Discrimination, Deprivation of 19 Life, Liberty and Property, Deprivation of Equal Protection Under the Law, Cruel and Unusual 20 Punishment, Race/Color Discrimination, First Amendment Violations.” 21 To begin with, Plaintiff’s claims that the Clearlake Defendants violated his rights to due 22 process and equal protection when they designated him as “anti-law enforcement” and racially 23 profiled him in 2006 and early 2007 have previously been denied in his prior lawsuits. The claims 24 against the Clearlake Police Department was denied under Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 25 U.S. 658 (1978), in his 2007 lawsuit. Davis v. Clearlake Police Dep’t., et al., No. C 07-3365 EDL 26 (ECF No. 79.) The claims against the individual officers were dismissed as untimely in his 2009 [27] 1 lawsuit. See Davis v. Herman, et al., No. C 09-0257 PJH (ECF No. 17). It is unclear whether 2 Plaintiff’s claims here are based upon the Clearlake Defendants’ actions in 2006 and 2007, or are 3 based on more recent or ongoing designation of him as a target. Plaintiff indicates that he has 4 been incarcerated in state prison for the last ten years, that he will soon be released, and that he 5 fears continued targeting by the Clearlake Defendants when he is released. Speculative future 6 targeting that has not taken place is not actionable. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff’s claims are based 7 upon more recent or ongoing designations and targeting of him by the Clearlake Defendants, he 8 may amend his complaint to make such allegations. 9 Plaintiff also does not state a valid due process claim unless there was a violation of a state 10 law, which he has not identified, that created a federal constitutional right. Interests that are 11 procedurally protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from two sources – the Due Process 12 Clause itself and laws of the states. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). Plaintiff 13 cites no authority, and the Court is aware of none, that the Clearlake Defendants’ alleged actions 14 violated the Due Process Clause itself. See generally Porter v. Osborn, 952 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th 15 Cir. 2008) (only official conduct that” shocks the conscience” is cognizable as a violation of the 16 Due Process Clause) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff does not allege any state 17 law violated by Defendants’ actions either, let alone a state law that creates a “liberty interest” 18 protected by the federal right to due process. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995) 19 (state laws create a protected “liberty interest” if they narrowly restrict the power of officials to 20 impose a deprivation "real substance"). Plaintiff may attempt to fix this problem in an amended 21 complaint, which he may file according to the provisions set forth below. 22 Plaintiff also does not allege a valid First Amendment retaliation claim. To state a proper 23 claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must allege that officials took adverse action because of the 24 plaintiff’s exercise of speech protected by the First Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 25 F.3d 559 , 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff alleges that Clearlake Defendants targeted him and 26 designated him as anti-law enforcement in retaliation for his 2007 lawsuit. His allegation that 27 Defendants took these actions after he filed the lawsuit does not plausibly support an inference of 1 between the two. See Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (retaliation 2 claim cannot rest on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e., “after this, therefore 3 because of this”). In his amended complaint, he may attempt to fix this problem. 4 Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment under the 5 Eighth Amendment because he has not alleged any punishment by the Clearlake Defendants. The 6 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated by disproportional 7 sentences, see Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010), and the conditions of confinement for 8 convicted prisoners, see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). Plaintiff states that he is 9 not challenging his conviction, and the Clearlake Defendants’ actions were not related to the 10 conditions of his confinement in state prison. Absent some authority that the Defendants’ alleged 11 unlawful designation and targeting of him constituted punishment subject to Eighth Amendment 12 limitations, he has not stated a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff may attempt to 13 cure this deficiency in his amended complaint. 14 Plaintiff’s allegations also do not state a valid equal protection claim because he has not 15 alleged that he was treated differently from similarly situated people. The Equal Protection Clause 16 of the Fourteenth Amendment commands “that all persons similarly situated should be treated 17 alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). He does not allege 18 that there are people who acted similarly to him or were otherwise in a similar position as him but 19 whom Defendants did not unlawfully designate or target for harsh treatment. If he is claiming 20 racial discrimination, he must allege that Defendants treated him differently than similarly situated 21 people because of his race. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). He 22 does not make this allegation. As with his other claims, Plaintiff will have an opportunity to 23 address this problem in his amended complaint. 24 CONCLUSION 25 The claims against Defendants Curry and Sutter County Department of Child Protective 26 Services are DISMISSED without prejudice to filing them in a new Complaint in the United States 27 District Court for the Eastern District of California. 1 Celli, and Officer Hobbs are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended 2 || complaint on or before August 15, 2022. The amended complaint must include the caption and 3 || civil case number used in this order (No. C 22-1481 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT4 || ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint 5 completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 6 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference; he must include in his 7 amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to amend within the designated g || time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 9 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed 10 of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of ul Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is filed 13 on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 3 4 action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. [615] 2 Dated: July 14, 2022 [16] 17 ’ Z 18 JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 19 United States District Judge