Opinion
SA CV 23-2416-CBM(E)
04-19-2024
KORTEZ J. FORD, Plaintiff, v. DETECTIVE O. CEPEDA, ET AL., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and paid the filing fee. Plaintiff identified the Defendants as: (1) Detective O. Cepeda; (2) “main investigator” Karolina Rodriguez; and (3) “other Police Officer 141217136” (Complaint, p. 2).
On January 10, 2024, Defendants Andre Cepeida (erroneously sued as Detective O. Cepeda) and Carolina Rodriguez (erroneously sued as Karolina Rodriguez) filed a “Motion to Dismiss, etc.” On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion. On February 13, 2024, the Court issued an “Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend.”
On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, naming the same Defendants. On March 19, 2024, Defendants Cepeida and Rodriguez filed another “Motion to Dismiss, etc.” On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion. The Court has taken that motion under submission without oral argument. See Minute Order, filed March 20, 2024.
Plaintiff's opposition erroneously notices a May 24, 2024 hearing. There will be no such hearing.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
I. Original Complaint
In the confused and largely unintelligible original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged: violated court order never reach out to me or told me about this case I was a victim in I wasnt in courtroom and didnt have knowledge of court order judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett order was 3 properties and limo should be realeased to me
The Court quotes verbatim from the Complaint and First Amended Complaint, without noting any apparent omissions and without attempting to correct any errors in capitalization, punctuation, spelling or grammar.
Judge Sherilyn Peace did a case July, 2014 where I was the victim of identity theft and theft my brother Kendrick ford my 2 cousins cornelius owens Darnell owens Stole my music got Signed to record label where the owner owe me money from what I made this investigation started from D'angelo A Luis got Pulled over by Police and used my name they found out he wasnt me it started a investigation where Police started following and all them was folling me around and stealing my music So investigation started in 2012 ended 2014 where warrent was issued on D'angelo A Luis and all them went to court they all was gone go to jail for stealing but it was a agreement that all them pay me back what they stole 2 house and a limo came from my family and I move house came from D'angelo A Luis record owner never paid what he owe and all this was issued by the judge the Police had a obligation to realease this to me never did never called me or told me it was a judgement I wasnt in court 9 years later I figured this out talk to the detective Ceipada who was arresting officer gave me case number 14217136 main investigator Karolina Rodriguez refuse to help talk to Supervisor treated me unfair refuse to help me Ryan williams (Complaint, pp. 4, 12).
The Complaint and First Amended Complaint do not bear consecutive page numbers. The Court uses the ECF pagination when referring to the Complaint and First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff alleged the jurisdictional basis for the Complaint as “42 U.S.C. 1983 do process deprive of property, equal protection” (id., p. 3). Additionally, Plaintiff alleged “violating my civil rights, emotinal distress, mental suffering enjoyment of life intentional Discrimination equal protection” (id., p. 4).
Plaintiff attached to the Complaint, inter alia, an “Incident Report” filed by the Denton Police Department in Denton, Texas, dated June 7, 2022 (id., pp. 10-11). This Incident Report appeared to document an interaction between Plaintiff and Texas police officers. According to the Incident Report, Plaintiff told the police: “he had people inside of his residence that were invisible and bothering him”; his identity was stolen approximately eight years prior by unknown people in California; after the identity theft, “there are people that are invisible that he can feel touching him as he is trying to work on his music lyrics”; and Plaintiff “wanted the police to help him deal with” the invisible people (id., p. 10). It remains unclear how, if at all, the Incident Report related to any civil rights claim purportedly alleged in the Complaint.
II. First Amended Complaint
Like the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint is confused and largely unintelligible. Plaintiff alleges the following:
I never had a notice opportunity to get what was available. Because I wasn't told I wasn't called so I didn't have the same respect or dignity that another person would have had in my circumstance I called them nine years later they never told me no other party ever told me and after nine years I still didn't deserve the whole truth Because I only heard one truth through one was a arresting officer another officer know nothing A supervisor flat out lie so haven't. I been through enough that they have seen and is that not deserving to get the whole truth and get what I'm only suffering for anyway is the rights to what is mine and being a great artist that write music.
IM KORTEZ J FORD A WRITER, ARTIST, AND A VICTIM OF A CRIME Very Hard Homelessness because of these Crimes the lack of trust in family and some friends because Of these crimes Theft, and identity theft back in 2014 5people was in the case beside me judge on the case Honorable Sherilyn Peace Garnett who was a State judge but now a federal judge department 77 division did the investigation three people out of that office Karolina R, Andre C Other Police Officer The conclusion of that the judge orders three houses To be given to me and a limo $67 million from my music That was
stolen, which made 300 million 50% was my Cut(First Amended Complaint, pp. 1-2).
Plaintiff appears to allege that unnamed friends and family members stole Plaintiff's identity and property (id., p. 2). Plaintiff further appears to allege that these purported wrongdoings resulted in state court orders in Plaintiff's favor (see id., pp. 210). Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendants and other law enforcement, as well as court officers, allegedly failed to notify Plaintiff concerning the orders or to assist Plaintiff in recovering his property (id.). Plaintiff also references numerous encounters with “invisible” people who Plaintiff apparently believes have followed Plaintiff and caused Plaintiff various difficulties (id., pp. 8-10). Although extremely difficult to decipher, Plaintiff's civil rights claims appear to be based on alleged deprivations of due process and equal protection (id., pp. 1-10). Plaintiff seeks $130 million in damages (id., p. 10).
STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The Court ordinarily must construe a pro se litigant's pleading liberally and hold a pro se plaintiff “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted).
The Court must accept as true all non-conclusory factual allegations contained in the complaint and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009). “Generally, a court may not consider material beyond the complaint in ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion.” Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and footnote omitted). The Court may consider “only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Schneider v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss.”) (citations omitted; emphasis in original).
The Court may not dismiss a complaint without leave to amend unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d at 1212 (citation omitted); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district court should grant leave to amend “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
DISCUSSION
In the “Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend,” the Court instructed Plaintiff that, under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(d)(1). Conclusory allegations are insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 686 (2009). “Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court's ability to administer justice.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted). A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation and internal quotations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Despite the Court's previous instruction, Plaintiff again plainly has failed to comply with Rule 8. The First Amended Complaint, like its predecessor, provides no coherent chronology of the alleged events, no clear statement of Plaintiff's claims for relief and no understandable allegations of fact supporting each claim. Plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations of alleged wrongdoing do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 686 (conclusory allegations are insufficient). Thus, the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for failure to comply with Rule 8. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (under Rule 8, court may dismiss confused, ambiguous and unintelligible pleading); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Patterson v. Old Republic Title Co., 2012 WL 2450710, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2012) (dismissing complaint that was “disorganized to the point of confusion” and failed to “contain a coherent . . . factual narrative” or a short and plain statement of facts supporting each claim).
Despite previous instruction from the Court, Plaintiff also has failed once again to allege in any comprehensible fashion what each Defendant supposedly did or did not do to violate Plaintiff's rights. To state a cognizable section 1983 claim, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). A complaint is subject to dismissal if one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued and for what relief. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d at 1178; see also Bonnette v. Dick, 2020 WL 3412733, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) (allegations insufficient where they “fail to adequately describe specific actions taken by each of the defendants named in the complaint”); Moreno v. Penzone, 2020 WL 1047068, at *2 (D. Ariz. March 4, 2020) (“To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant”) (citation omitted); Chevalier v. Ray and Joan Kroc Corps. Cmty. Ctr., 2012 WL 2088819, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012) (complaint that failed to “identify which wrongs were committed by which Defendant” insufficient).
The First Amended Complaint again attempts to assert an equal protection claim (First Amended Complaint, p. 9). As the Court previously instructed, to state an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d at 1194-95. The First Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts plausibly suggesting that any Defendant intentionally treated Plaintiff differently from others similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (conclusory equal protection claim insufficient); Oberdorfer v. Jewkes, 583 Fed. App'x 770, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 575 U.S. 984 (2015) (same). Hence, Plaintiff again has failed to state a cognizable equal protection claim. ///
It appears that the First Amended Complaint also attempts once again to assert a due process claim (see First Amended Complaint, pp. 2-3). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to state a claim for violation of the right to procedural due process, Plaintiff must allege facts showing: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.2003); see Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 459-60 (1989); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has alleged no facts even remotely demonstrating a denial of due process. Construed liberally, the First Amended Complaint appears to allege the following: Plaintiff did not have “notice or opportunity to go to court have a hearing on my property”; God told Plaintiff about Plaintiff's property; Plaintiff “called a random police station” in California, which led Plaintiff to Defendants; and Defendants did not help Plaintiff gain access to his property (First Amended Complaint, pp. 2-3). No alleged facts plausibly demonstrate that constitutional procedural protections were due to Plaintiff, that those procedural protections were denied to Plaintiff, or that any Defendant was responsible therefor. To the extent that Plaintiff's purported due process claims are based on any other legal theory, such claims fail because they are so vague and conclusory as to be incomprehensible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, Plaintiff again has failed to state a cognizable due process claim. /// /// ///
CONCLUSION
In the “Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend,” the Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file a First Amended Complaint which stated a cognizable claim for relief could result in the dismissal of this action. Despite this caution, the First Amended Complaint again fails to state a cognizable claim. Although the Court previously instructed Plaintiff regarding the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the elements of federal due process and equal protection claims, and although the Court previously afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to attempt to state a cognizable claim for relief, Plaintiff has proven unwilling or unable to do so. In these circumstances, granting further leave to amend would be an idle act. See Simon v. Value Behav. Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.), amended, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1104 (2001), overruled on other grounds, Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where plaintiff failed to correct deficiencies in complaint, where court had afforded plaintiff opportunities to do so, and where court had given plaintiff notice of the substantive problems with his claims); Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. #40, County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile). Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the First Amended /// /// /// /// Complaint and the action without leave to amend and with prejudice.
In light of this recommendation, the Court need not and does not, reach the merits of the other contentions made in the Motion to Dismiss.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; (2) granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and (3) dismissing the First Amended Complaint and the action without leave to amend and with prejudice.
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted; (2) the First Amended Complaint and the action are dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice; and (3) Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve forthwith a copy of this Order and the Judgment of this date on Plaintiff and on counsel for Defendants.
JUDGMENT
CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IT IS ADJUDGED that the action is dismissed with prejudice.