Opinion
NO. CV 16-0046-JFW(E)
01-13-2016
CEDRIC TYRONE MOORE AND PAULA PFLUGER, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
For the reasons discussed below, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Cedric Tyrone Moore and Paula Pfluger, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on January 4, 2016. Defendants are: (1) the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS"); (2) Children's Services Worker II Ebony Crowe; (3) Children's Services Supervisor Lenee Brown; (4) Children's Services Worker Brent Callum; and (5) Supervisor Social Worker Dasha Leonard. Plaintiff sues the individual Defendants in their official capacities only.
The form Complaint is vague and contains few understandable factual allegations. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Crowe "failed to interview plaintiff concerning allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse and submitted false information depriving Plaintiff's [sic] of due process" (Complaint, p. 3). Crowe allegedly "failed to provide adequate due process and investigation before filing the case" (id., p. 5). Defendant Brown allegedly "approved false evidence without substantial facts leading to pre and post due process violations causing plaintiff harm and endangering his child" (id., p. 3). Brown allegedly "failed to confirm domestic violence allegations" (id., p. 5).
Defendant Callum allegedly "detain[ed] plaintiff's daughter from custody of mother and failed to notify father or grandparents and endangering [sic] child by placing with a suicidal parent" (id., p. 3). Callum also allegedly "failed to give notice of child being admitted to foster care" (id., p. 5). Defendant Leonard allegedly "approved the removal of child to foster care without contacting the father or grandmother violating Plaintiff due process rights" (id., p. 4). Leonard also allegedly "failed to provide due process of allegedly domestic violence to father when plaintiff was the victim of the allege[d] domestic abuse by children services with active restraining order, and was seeking hearing on the merit [sic] of the issues after incidents occurred causing conflict with girlfriend and mother of child leading to loss of consordium [sic]" (id., p. 5). Leonard also allegedly: (1) failed to provide Plaintiff Pfluger with legal counsel; (2) failed to give Plaintiff Pfluger due process "to defend against allegation listed in complaint with boyfriend that subjected her to drug testing and altering living arraingments [sic]"; (3) "[f]ailed to provide with legal assistance in court proceedings"; and (4) exhibited "gender bias toward father giving preferred treatment to mother to not complete court ordered requirement give custody of child to mother who was unsuitable and suicidal" (id.). Defendant DCFS allegedly "provided not [sic] pre or post due process for drug abuse allegation to plaintiff and used false information to detain child, and endangered child with suicidal parent (id.).
Plaintiffs attach to the Complaint two form documents titled "Claim for Damage, Injury or Death" used for the submission of federal tort claims. These forms bear Plaintiff Moore's name and concern alleged incidents on March 11, 2014 and September 15, 2015. The form concerning the alleged March 2014 incident asserts that: (1) Defendants Callum, Leonard and "Associate Staff" allegedly engaged in prosecutorial misconduct related to notification to a relative of a child's placement in foster care and to an assessment of domestic violence; and (2) Defendant DCFS allegedly engaged in gender discrimination and child endangerment by releasing a child to an unstable parent. The form concerning the alleged September 2015 incident asserts that: (1) Defendants Crowe and Brown allegedly committed prosecutorial misconduct "that resulted in termination of parental rights when father was known to be the victim of domestic violence by childs [sic] mother"; (2) DCFS allegedly committed gender discrimination under the direction of various DCFS officials including Defendants Brown and Crowe; and (3) DCFS allegedly engaged in child endangerment by releasing a child to an unstable parent.
In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek damages of $14 million for "emotional distress, financial stress, deprivation of life, liberty, and property" (Complaint, p. 6).
DISCUSSION
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).
The Complaint, which is unclear and confused, fails to comply with Rule 8. The relationship between the two Plaintiffs is unclear, as is the relationship of Plaintiff Pfluger to Plaintiff's Moore's children and to the alleged court proceedings. The Complaint frequently refers to "plaintiff" in the singular without specifying which of the two Plaintiffs the Complaint intends to reference. Perhaps DCFS employees initiated child dependency proceedings involving one or more of the children of one or both Plaintiffs, based on allegations of domestic violence or drug abuse, and perhaps these proceedings resulted in the termination of the parental rights of one or both Plaintiffs or the placement of one or more of the children in foster care. However, the Complaint is too vague, confused, and conclusory to permit any confident understanding of the factual bases of Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 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 which was "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy and largely irrelevant"); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (plaintiff must allege more than an "unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"; a pleading that "offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do").
Plaintiff may not sue a municipal entity such as DCFS on a theory of respondeat superior, which is not a theory of liability cognizable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (2009); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106 (2003). The County may be held liable only if the alleged wrongdoing was committed pursuant to a municipal policy, custom or usage. See Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1997); Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Conclusory allegations do not suffice to plead a municipal liability claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012) ("allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively"); see also AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards set forth in Starr v. Baca govern municipal liability claims).
The Complaint alleges no facts plausibly suggesting that the individual Defendants were acting pursuant to any DCFS policy, custom or usage in doing the alleged acts. Hence, the Complaint fails to plead a cognizable municipal liability claim.
To the extent Plaintiffs claim that any individual Defendant wrongfully initiated child dependency proceedings, any such Defendant would appear to be immune from such a claim. See Costanich v. Dep't of Social and Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We have long held that social workers have absolute immunity when they make discretionary, quasi-prosecutorial decisions to institute court dependency proceedings to take custody away from parents.") (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Finally, although Plaintiff Moore signed the Complaint, Plaintiff Pfluger did not. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed personally by an unrepresented party. Plaintiff Moore cannot represent Plaintiff Pfluger, or anyone other than himself. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiffs still wish to pursue this action, they are granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint shall be complete in itself. It shall not refer in any manner to any prior complaint. All Plaintiffs must sign the First Amended Complaint. Failure to file timely a First Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of this action. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to follow court order); Simon v. Value Behavioral 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. School District #40, County of Yamhill, /// 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 13, 2016.
/s/_________
JOHN F. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PRESENTED this 8th day of January, 2016, by: /s/_________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE