Bonnette v. Dick
| Decision Date | 22 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-0046-DAD-BAM |
| Parties | PHILLIP BONNETTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LELAND ROSS DICK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Phillip Bonnette and Linda Faye Grant-Jones ("Plaintiffs") are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action against Defendants Leland Ross Dick, Michael Herbert Crowley, Ronald James Works, the Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims, Kevin Lolkus, Daniel Epperly, Sean Quinn, Sergeant Hansen, and John Epickson. On April 5, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiffs' complaint and granted leave to amend. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. No. 15.)
The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiffs' complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may begranted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint arises out of various instances of alleged trespass by their neighbors on to Plaintiffs' private property. Plaintiffs name their neighbors Leland Ross Dick, Michael Herbert Crowley, and Ronald James Works (the "Neighbor Defendants") as well as the Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims, Deputy Sheriff Kevin Lolkus, Deputy Sheriff Daniel Epperly, Deputy Sheriff Sean Quinn, Sergeant Hansen, and Deputy Sheriff John Epickson (the "Sheriff's Department Defendants") as defendants.
According to Plaintiffs, the Neighbor Defendants claim a prescriptive easement through Plaintiff's property but have no easement or legal right to access Plaintiff's property at all. Plaintiffs allege that the Neighbor Defendants never had permission to enter Plaintiffs' property and Plaintiffs have warned Defendant Works many times to stay off their property. Each timePlaintiffs have stopped the Neighbor Defendants from entering onto their property, the Neighbor Defendants have called the Fresno County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department Defendants have then told Plaintiffs that there is nothing they can do because it's a civil matter. Plaintiffs allege that the Sheriff's Department Defendants are illegally and intentionally protecting the Neighbor Defendants' trespass on Plaintiffs' private property. Sheriff Margaret Mims is alleged to be in the care of the other Sheriff's Department Defendants.
Defendant Dick allegedly called the Fresno County Sheriff's Department on December 4, 2009, because Plaintiffs locked their gates and removed Defendant Dick's access to a road through Plaintiffs' property. Deputy Sheriff Epperly allegedly ignored Plaintiff's posted signs stating, "No Trespassing," "Private Property," and "Civil Code § 1008" and further wrote a false police report.
On December 19, 2009, Plaintiffs locked their gates and the Neighbor Defendants cut the locks off. The Neighbor Defendants then called the Fresno Sheriff's Department twice more on the same day when Plaintiffs relocked their gate. Deputy Sheriffs Quinn and Hansen then allegedly used a master key to unlock Plaintiffs' lock on one occasion and a bolt cutter to cut chain link on the gate on another occasion. Deputy Sheriffs Quinn and Hansen then allegedly told the Neighbor Defendants to put their own personal lock on Plaintiffs' gate. Plaintiffs further allege that the Sheriff's Department Defendants told Plaintiffs that the Neighbor Defendants' property is landlocked, and they have a prescriptive easement to access Plaintiffs' driveway.
On January 13, 2010, Defendant Crowley "had a crime report written up" for trespass against Plaintiffs.
On December 22, 2016, Deputy Sheriff Lolkus sent Plaintiffs a letter stating that the easement issue was a civil matter and ignoring Plaintiffs' claims of trespass. Deputy Sheriff Lolkus' letter further stated that Plaintiffs' allegations against an unidentified Fresno County Sheriff's Department employee were frivolous and an investigation into the matter was closed.
On December 10, 2017, Deputy Sheriff Epickson allegedly told Plaintiffs that they cannot lock their gate to keep the Neighbor Defendants out. Deputy Sheriff Epickson allegedly further said that the Neighbor Defendants can do whatever they want and cut the lock off to get throughPlaintiffs' property if they have to.
The Neighbor Defendants have allegedly given out "thousands of keys" to unlock Plaintiffs' gate and have damaged Plaintiffs' driveway by "running in/out daily night and day 7 days a week 365 days a year." Plaintiffs further allege that the Neighbor Defendants poisoned one of Plaintiffs' horses that had been sold to a third party for $50,000.00, have poisoned "most of the 250 horses of open range plus some Stallion [sic] in pens in the barn" on Plaintiffs' property, and have poisoned "top breed dogs on chains as well in [sic] kennels." The Neighbor Defendants have also allegedly stolen some horses and dogs from Plaintiffs' property, damaged and stolen gas from vehicles located on Plaintiffs' property, and destroyed Plaintiffs' turkey ranch business. Plaintiffs further allege that the Neighbor Defendants' dogs and cats run loose through Plaintiffs' property and kill Plaintiffs' livestock. The Neighbor Defendants also purportedly leave Plaintiffs' gate open so that Plaintiffs' horses and livestock get out onto the main road. The Neighbor Defendants also allegedly keep Plaintiffs' grandchildren from playing in the yard and "almost run over them[.]" Plaintiffs further allege that the Neighbor Defendants come through their property with horse and cow trailers and that horses have been stolen after these horse and cow trailers enter Plaintiffs' property. The Neighbor Defendants have also allegedly posted their home number address on Plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 and sets forth claims for trespass, invasion of privacy, and failure to prevent conspiracy to deprive federal protected rights.
Plaintiffs' complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. However, as Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they will be granted leave to amend their complaint to cure the below-identified deficiencies to the extent they can do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiffs, the Court provides the pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to their claims.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain "a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs must set forth "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 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
The majority of Plaintiffs' amended complaint is an impermissible "shotgun" pleading. A "[s]hotgun pleading occurs when one party pleads that multiple parties did an act, without identifying which party did what specifically; or when one party pleads multiple claims, and does not identify which specific facts are allocated to which claim." Hughey v. Drummond, 2014 WL 579365, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (citation omitted). The amended complaint alleges various claims but does not state which facts relate to which claim or how the facts relate to the legal claims raised. Plaintiffs fail to adequately describe specific actions taken by each of the defendants named in the complaint that violated their constitutional rights. Instead, the complaint is filled with opaque, scattershot factual allegations and generalized statements. Plaintiffs lump Defendants together in the majority of their claims and it is not clear which claims Plaintiffs intend to assert against each of the respective Defendants. This is not permissible because it does...
To continue reading
Request your trial