Opinion
23-cv-05402-LJC
04-17-2024
ANJALI WARD, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY
RE: ECF NO. 1
Lisa J. Cisneros, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Anjali Ward, who is unrepresented and is proceeding in this case in forma pauperis (IFP) (see ECF No. 6), brings this action against twenty-six named Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 2-3, 5, 7-8. The Court previously screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found that Ms. Ward had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to ten Defendants. Id. She was given until January 2, 2024 to file an amended complaint. Id. No amended complaint has been filed to date.
Unless specified otherwise, the Court refers to the PDF page number generated by the Court's efiling system.
Ms. Ward has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. However, Defendants have not been served and therefore have not yet consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district judge. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). For the reasons detailed below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of Ms. Ward's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
I. BACKGROUND
In her Complaint, filed on October 20, 2023, Ms. Ward asserts causes of action for defamation, malicious prosecution, medical negligence, wrongful death, and “false report filing.”ECF No. 1 at 14. She also brings a Section 1983 claim as well as claims for violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., and kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Id. Ms. Ward alleges that on October 22, 2021, she requested emergency medical assistance to her home for her son, MKW. Id. at 9-10. The Antioch Police Department (PD) was the first to arrive on the scene, followed by ConFire Antioch and an American Medical Response (AMR) ambulance. Id. MKW ultimately died from what Antioch PD later characterized as “suspicious injuries.” Id. at 11.
Ms. Ward is presumably referring to California Penal Code Section 148.5, which makes it a crime to report to law enforcement that a felony or misdemeanor has been committed, knowing the report to be false. See Cal. Penal Code § 148.5(a).
Ms. Ward never provides her son's full name and only uses his initials throughout the Complaint.
Ms. Ward never elaborates on “ConFire Antioch” and what type of local entity it is. The Court sua sponte takes judicial notice of the website for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, which indicates it has a fire station located in Antioch, California. See Station Addresses, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, available at https://www.cccfpd.org/station-address/; Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 1011, 1033-34 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Under Rule 201, the court can take judicial notice of ‘[p]ublic records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet,' such as websites run by governmental agencies”) (citation omitted).
Ms. Ward alleges that Antioch PD, ConFire Antioch, AMR, the Sutter Delta medical staff that treated MKW for his injuries, and other individuals and entities also involved in the events from that day all filed false police reports stating that she had injured MKW and caused his death. Id. According to Ms. Ward, they falsely reported that MKW died in Ms. Ward's home while in her custody, but she contends that MKW was still alive when emergency services arrived, and that he actually died from medical negligence on the part of the first responders that treated him in the ambulance. Id. at 11-12. Ms. Ward also makes allegations as to injuries to her other son, SW, who was removed from her custody by Child Protective Services and Children & Family Services following MKW's death. Id. at 12-13. Ms. Ward claims that the false accusations against her stem in part from Antioch PD's racism towards Native Americans and other racial minority groups. Id. at 11. She attaches to her Complaint several articles detailing highly publicized, recent scandals involving Antioch PD, including current and former officers sending each other allegedly racist text messages and facing charges from the U.S. Attorney's Office for fraud and civil rights violations related to excessive force. Id. at 16-24.
As with her son MKW, Ms. Ward never provides her son SW's full name and only uses his initials throughout the Complaint.
The twenty-six named Defendants are comprised of the various local governmental entities involved in the events at issue as well as individuals employed by these entities. Ms. Ward requests 5 million dollars in damages. Id. at 15. Although she never explicitly states whether she was criminally charged in connection with MKW's death, Ms. Ward also requests a “fair trial” because her attorney “did not represent [her] properly or get any evidence.” Id.
On November 16, 2023, the Court granted Ms. Ward's IFP application and screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ECF No. 6. The Court found that Ms. Ward had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted as to Defendants Jonathan Downie, Greg Sawyer, Chau Nguyen, Kim Yang, Andrew Rozner, Dave Manzeck, Marco Paez, Jonathan Daniels, Ryan Lipkin, and Mary FitzSimons, because she had alleged no facts or claims as to any of these enumerated Defendants. Id. at 2. The Court gave Ms. Ward until January 2, 2024 to file an amended complaint. Id. The same day that the Court issued its screening order, the Initial Case Management Conference which set for January 18, 2024 was continued to February 22, 2024. ECF No. 7. Also that same day, Ms. Ward consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. ECF No. 8.
However, Ms. Ward did not file an amended complaint by the January 2, 2024 deadline. On February 16, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed and Resetting Initial Case Management Conference (Order to Show Cause). ECF No. 9. The Court noted that Ms. Ward had failed to file an amended complaint and had also not filed a Case Management Conference Statement by February 15, 2024, in advance of the February 22, 2024 Initial Case Management Conference. Id. The Court ordered Ms. Ward to file a response to the Order to Show Cause by March 1, 2024, and show cause why the action should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute. Id. In addition, the Court directed Ms. Ward to indicate in her response whether she intended to proceed with the Complaint without amending her claims as to the ten Defendants enumerated in the screening order, and whether she wanted to proceed with her claims against the remaining Defendants named in the Complaint. Id. The Initial Case Management Conference was continued to April 25, 2024.
Ms. Ward failed to file a response to the Order to Show Cause by the March 1, 2024 deadline and has not filed anything else on the docket since then.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Even when the Court allows a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security, it is under a continuing duty to dismiss such a case whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If the Court dismisses a case pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the plaintiff may still file the same complaint by paying the filing fee. This is because the Court's Section 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal is not on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court's discretion under the IFP statute. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).
In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court assumes that all factual allegations in the complaint are true. Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions” and to “mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The pertinent question is whether the factual allegations, assumed to be true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). If not, the complaint will be subject to dismissal. Ordinarily the Court must give an IFP plaintiff leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228, n.9 (9th Cir. 1984).
III. DISCUSSION
The undersigned finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as to Defendants Jonathan Downie, Greg Sawyer, Chau Nguyen, Kim Yang, Andrew Rozner, Dave Manzeck, Marco Paez, Jonathan Daniels, Ryan Lipkin, and Mary FitzSimons. Ms. Ward alleges no facts or claims against them. A complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, but it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). There is nothing in the Complaint as to these ten Defendants to allow the Court “to draw the reasonable inference” that they are “liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that an IFP plaintiff must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1235, n.9. However, the Court previously granted Ms. Ward an opportunity to amend her complaint as to these ten Defendants (ECF No. 6), but she failed to file anything by the January 2, 2024 deadline.
Despite missing this first deadline, Ms. Ward was given an opportunity with the Order to Show Cause to respond by March 1, 2024 and explain whether she intended to proceed with the Complaint without amending her claims as to the ten Defendants enumerated in the screening order and whether she wanted to proceed with her claims against the remaining Defendants named in the Complaint. ECF No. 9. The Court warned Ms. Ward that failure to respond by the March 1, 2024 deadline could “result in a report and recommendation by the undersigned that this case be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute.” Id. Ms. Ward never filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or claim for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power.'”) Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the district judge dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district judge and RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of Ms. Ward's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Any party may serve and file objections to this recommendation within fourteen days after being served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.