Bryant v. Tulare Cnty.
| Decision Date | 17 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1542-LJO-SKO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | MARY J. BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. TULARE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
(Doc. 7.)
On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Mary J. Bryant, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Tulare County, Neil Pilegard, and Phil Cox. (Doc. 1 ("Compl.").) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 2.) On November 29, 2016, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the Order. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff's amended complaint was due to be filed by December 20, 2016. (See id. and Docket.) On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Tulare County ("the County"), Neil Pilegard ("Pilegard"), Phil Cox ("Cox"), and Kathleen Bales-Lange ("Bales-Lange") (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 7 ("Am. Compl.").)
After screening Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court finds that despite the explicit recitation of the deficiencies of Plaintiff's original complaint, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any violation of federal law. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's amended complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.1
Plaintiff's amended complaint consists of 17 handwritten pages, many of which are extremely difficult to discern. Plaintiff appears to allege that Mooney Grove Park has become "mis-managed" and "run-down," and is being "drained of its resources and used to obtain grants both state and federal, donations, all of which go into a County 'General Fund' and is used for projects etc. 'other than intended.'" (Am Compl. at p. 3.) Plaintiff complains that "it is difficult to get results [from Defendant Tulare County] when literally every resource needed to help is a County resource [unintelligible] by influential, County employees and local government officials." (Id. at pp. 3-4.) The County engaged in "misappropriation of funds, donations, state and federal grants, tobacco settlement revenue, salary savings, 'Amphitheater Funds" used for other than intended." (Id. at p. 5.) Mooney Grove Park has "asbestos lining water pipes used for drinking, E-coli in water used to water grass contaminating playgrounds, picnic facilities, and in sprinklers, bacteria in water and air used by public and animals, and employees falsify documents on regular basis (time sheets) (bobcat and backhoe certifications - only mechanics trained by manufacturer)." (Id.)
Defendant Pilegard "participates and instructs workers using County vehicles run over, injure, maim, kill ducks/goose," uses "commercial propane excellerant [sic] to 'blow up squirrels'" and "uses rat poison in gopher holes and around protected oak trees." (Id. at p. 6.) Defendant Pilegard "reports to" Defendant Cox, who is "responsible for grants, loans, donations, used on Projects other than intended." (Id. at p. 5.) Defendant Cox is "not truthful about costs to restore historical features." (Id.) Defendant Cox "[k]nows @ animal abuse protected oak trees being destroyed, but does nothing conspiracy." (Id.)
Defendant Tulare County "stole a retired county 'whistleblower' and singled [Plaintiff] out by the same attorney as the Supervisors, [Defendant] Kathleen Bales-Lange, in their scheme tocontinue to further the organization with a pattern of criminal activity." (Id. at p. 4.) Defendant Bales-Lange is "Attorney for County Supervisors . . . who had [Plaintiff] jailed for 3 days intentionally to miss hearing for Robert Turner," and was also the "[a]ttorney . . . when Robert Turner was whistle-blower against Tulare County." (Id. at p. 7.) Robert Turner "was a retired Tulare County worker" and "head groundskeeper for 15 years." (Id. at p. 12.) "Robby" "testified before the Grand Jury and trial of criminal activities by the County," and was "also [Plaintiff's] witness before the Grand Jury [in] February 2015." (Id. at p. 13.) Defendant Bales-Lange "had [Plaintiff] arrested on false 'elder abuse' accusations," and Plaintiff "was jailed for 3 days intentional to miss a hearing, [n]o charges were filed." (Id.) "Robby" died while Plaintiff was "going through the court system to bring him home," and Defendant Tulare County "took him from the only person he trusted, the only family member we each have was each other." (Id. at p. 14.) The "report from Orange County Probate Court blasts Tulare County for the misconduct . . . stealing Robby's pension, charging to him every phone call." (Id.) Defendant Tulare County was "negligent to every extent, including refusing to pay for his meds." (Id.) Defendant Tulare County "was [r]etaliating against an informant for his pension, and against [Plaintiff] for [her] work against County and uncovering the truth and exposing County and [Defendant] Phil Cox and [Defendant] Neil Pilegard for pattern of criminal [r]acketeering, animal abuse, etc." (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges her causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962 (civil RICO) and criminal codes 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1512, and 1513. (Id. at pp. 1, 2.) Plaintiff also attaches to her amended complaint a "Criminal Complaint" on a pre-printed form, which is accompanied by three (3) handwritten pages. (Id. at pp. 18-21.)
District courts "may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possess that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the action is frivolous or malicious, or fails tostate a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). An action is "frivolous" if it has no arguable basis in fact or law; the term embraces both inarguable legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); DeRock v. Sprint-Nextel, 584 Fed. Appx. 737 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). "A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998); Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. However, the "denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion unless the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile." Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. If a court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivolous and cannot be cured by amendment, then the denial of the motion acts as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 1188.
A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). In order to properly allege a claim, the 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). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Plausibility" means "more than a sheer possibility," but less than a probability, and facts that are "merely consistent" with liability fall short of "plausibility." Id. Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of theelements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed criminal mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512), and retaliation against a witness (18 U.S.C. § 1513). (Am. Compl. at pp. 1, 2.) Title 18 of the United States Code covers crimes and criminal procedures. Such criminal allegations are not properly brought forth in a civil complaint. See Dyson v. Utigard, 163 F.3d 607, 607 (9th Cir. 1998); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (); Hacker v. Hacker, No. 1:15-cv-01258 JAM MJS, 2015 WL 8780561, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) (); Aguirre v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., No. CV 11-6911 CAS (AGRx), 2012 WL 273753, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial