Forte v. Merced Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:15-cv-0147 KJM-BAM |
| Parties | EUGENE E. FORTE, Plaintiff, v. MERCED COUNTY, ERIC DUMARS, LARRY MORSE, MARK PAZIN, JEFF BERGER, ALAN TURNER, JAMES FINCHER, ROGER MATZKIND, JAMES PADRON, CINDY MORSE, THOMAS PFEIFF, DAVE CAPRON, JERRY O'BANION, DR. RICHARD A. BLAK, JAMES WEAKLEY, LARRY COMBS, MERCED COUNTY DEPUTIES THOMAS CAVALERRO, CHRIS JASKOWIAK, CHRIS PICINICH, MIKE HILL, ADAM LEUCHNER, HERMAN PROCK, GEOFFREY ROGERS, DAVID SCOTT, MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LOS BANOS, STEVE RATH, LB CHIEF GARY BRIZZEE, LB OFFICER ANTHONY PARKER, MERCED COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, MERCED COUNTY DEFENSE ASSOCATION, MERCED COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MERCED COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE, MERCED COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, MERCED COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MCLATHCY NEWSPAPERS, COREY PRIDE, and DOES 1-25, individually and in their official capacity, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART
(Doc. 18)
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Plaintiff Eugene Forte ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and various state law related claims. On June 18, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff's initial complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 18). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names 37 different public entities, public officials, and private actors for violations of Plaintiff's civil rights.1 That pleading is now before the Court for screening.
In cases in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it at any time that the Court concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or portion thereof, that may have been paid, the Court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (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).
While persons proceeding pro se actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted,); 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 mereconsistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges various causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 against numerous governmental and non-governmental entities.2 So far as the Court can discern, these allegations concern a myriad of factual assertions linked by an overarching conspiracy against Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights in the criminal prosecutions related to his prior arrests, among other things.3 The conspiracy and alleged violations of Constitutional rights center on complaints made by Plaintiff to various governmental officials about his arrests, which went unanswered, and then more specifically, to the prosecution of the criminal actions which resulted from his two arrests.4 Plaintiff asserts that the prosecutions unconstitutionally declared him mentally incompetent when he was not, and as a result, denied Plaintiff a fair criminal trial. FAC at ¶ 53. Further, throughout his state court criminal case and a related civil case in this court, Plaintiff alleges that various actors, both public and private, orchestrated a conspiracy against him, infringed his rights to engage in protected speech and to petition for redress of his grievances.
Plaintiff is an online blogger who writes articles in the Badger Flats Gazette. In 2007, Plaintiff took a public stance against the County of Merced on behalf of a property owner who was remediating contamination. In 2008, Plaintiff wrote articles criticizing Merced County officials' handling of contamination remediation. The remediation efforts resulted in a lawsuit, in which Plaintiff was named as a cross-defendant. Plaintiff objected to a Pro-temp judge James Padron presiding over ahearing and on February 24, 2009, as a hearing went forward, Plaintiff attempted a citizen's arrest of Padron. As Plaintiff attempted a citizen's arrest of defendant Padron, Defendant Picinich, a Deputy Sheriff employed by Merced County grabbed Forte and arrested him ("February 24, 2009 arrest"). (Doc. 1 at ¶55.) Plaintiff was charged with two felonies.
On June 3, 2009, Plaintiff appeared at a Los Banos City Council meeting and spoke at the public forum. Defendant Pride, resident of Los Banos, poked Plaintiff in the chest for his statements and the police refused to arrest Pride. After the meeting, defendant Lieb, a newspaper editor, wrote a commentary about the incident, inaccurately reported the incident and caused humiliation to Forte.
On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff went to court for a traffic ticket his son had received. He was refused permission to bring in a recorder. Defendant Picinich refused to allow the recorder to be taken in and Forte and Picinich exchanged words and then Picinich knocked Plaintiff to the ground, kneed him in the back and arrested Plaintiff ("July 21, 2009 arrest"). During the escort, Picinich yanked on handcuffs causing pain to Plaintiff and also slammed Plaintiff's head against the door and kneed him in the stomach. (Doc. 1, ¶84, 85.) Plaintiff incurred over $10,000 in medical bills. Defendant District Attorney Larry Morse refused to investigate the incident. After the incident, Plaintiff wrote numerous articles in the Badger Flats Gazette about the incident and the inaccuracies of the police reports about the incident.
In 2009, a misdemeanor criminal action was brought against Plaintiff for his arrests and the Merced County Superior Court appointed Merced County Defense Association as the conflict public defender in Plaintiff's case. In an effort to challenge his 2009 arrests and related prosecution, Plaintiff filed a federal civil lawsuit in this court against numerous people for violation of his civil right arising out of his February 24, 2009 and July 21, 2009 arrests, among other claims. See Forte v. DA Larry Morse, 11-cv-0318 AWI BAM.
In his FAC in the instant case, Plaintiff begins with the allegation that in September 2012, Merced County Board of Supervisors failed to perform an investigation of various public officials at Plaintiff's request. FAC at ¶ 40. According to Plaintiff, in furtherance of a conspiracy to harm him, the Merced County Board of Supervisors, Merced County Supervisor Jerry O'Banion, and Merced County Chief Executive Officer Larry Coombs ignored Plaintiff's request for an investigation intoPlaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy. FAC at ¶ 40.
In explaining his conspiracy theory, Plaintiff alleges that in April 2009 (shortly after he was arrested) the Merced County Superior Court appointed Defendant Eric Dumars as the public defender in Plaintiff's criminal case. Plaintiff alleges that his criminal attorney Dumars eventually requested the dismissal of the criminal charges against Plaintiff (over Plaintiff's objections) but also requested that the state court fine Plaintiff $9,333.33 for the cost of his defense. FAC at ¶ 56. Judgment was entered against Plaintiff for $9,333.33. Id. Although Dumars secured a dismissal of Plaintiff's criminal charges, Plaintiff claims that his inadequate criminal defense by Dumars and the monetary fine were carried out maliciously in furtherance of a conspiracy against him.
Also related to the dismissal of his 2009 criminal case, Plaintiff alleges that his criminal case was terminated short of trial because he was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. FAC at ¶ 54. Plaintiff accuses Defendant Dr. Richard Blak of falsely diagnosing Plaintiff with "severe delusional disorder" in the criminal court competency proceeding. FAC at ¶ 51. Plaintiff further alleges that Merced County Counsel Roger Matzkind and James Fincher misused the criminal process by orchestrating his criminal trial against him and by having Plaintiff declared mentally incompetent when he was not. FAC at ¶ 62.
While his criminal case was still pending, Plaintiff alleges on April 10, 2013, "Defendants Matzkind, Fincher, and Morse" in this Court's federal civil rights case Forte v. Merced County, 1:11-cv-318 AWI-BAM notified this Court that Plaintiff was declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial