Gonzales v. Rutledge
| Decision Date | 29 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 1:17-cv-00387-LJO-BAM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | GERARDO GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. BILL RUTLEDGE, et al., Defendants. |
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzales ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action on March 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and required him to pay the filing fee in full for this action. (ECF No. 8.) On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff paid the filing fee.
On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court entitled "Legal Letter for the Court to Take Judicial Notice; Request for Immediate Action by this Court due to Medical and Psychological Harm to Plaintiff; Order for Protection and Legal Questions." (ECF No. 9.)
Plaintiff's complaint is currently before the Court for screening.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's 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 be granted, 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, 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).
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, 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 mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff brings this action against more than fifty defendants, including employees of the Kern County Human Services Department, the Kern County District Attorney's Office, the Kern County Sheriff's Department, the Kern County Superior Court, and the various field offices of the FBI located in Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. (ECF No. 1 at pp. 2-3.)
Plaintiff forwards 12 separate claims for violation of his constitutional rights, all of which stem from an apparent investigation into allegations of child molestation against him and a subsequent criminal action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to file false allegations ofchild molestation against him, resulting in, among other things, false arrests, false imprisonment and a no contest plea in violation of his constitutional rights.
In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 1984, Cory Taylor, an employee of Kern County Human Services, formed a conspiracy with Janet F. Hastings, Brooke A. Hastings and Bob Hastings to file false allegations of child molestation against him. Plaintiff asserts that he entitled to declaratory stating that he is innocent of any and all charges filed by these parties. (ECF No. 1 at p. 10.) Plaintiff further alleges that he suffered defamatory damage, loss of work/income, and emotional distress. He also lost him home and belongings and spent 2 ½ years in Kern County Jail due to defendants actions. (Id.)
In his second claim, Plaintiff alleges that Cory Taylor, Bill Rutledge, W.S. Wahl and other Kern County Employees conspired to arrest him without any investigation or warrants. Plaintiff contends that the sole purpose was to remove Melissa Gonzales and Tyson Gonzales from their home and coerce them into making false allegations against him.
In his third claim for relief, Plaintiff alleges that before June 26, 1984, Cory Taylor and Janet F. Hastings conspired to convince Brooke A. Hastings to make false allegations. Plaintiff asserts that he later found out that Cory Taylor and Janet F. Hastings were best friends since high school. They allegedly had no experience or training in knowing the signs of child molestation. Plaintiff further asserts that the actions of Cory Taylor and Janet F. Hastings caused him to be illegally arrested, illegally incarcerated, lose property/money, suffer emotional distress and defamatory damage, and temporarily lose parental rights and custody of his children.
In his fourth claim, Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 1984, Kern County Sheriff's Deputies Bill Rutledge and W.S. Wahl joined in the conspiracy with Cory Taylor, Janet F. Hastings and Brooke A. Hastings and falsely arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and without an arrest warrant. They also searched the premises without Plaintiff's consent.
In his fifth claim, Plaintiff alleges that on June 27 or 28, 1984, he was released from jail because further investigation was needed. Plaintiff claims that defendants, including the Kern County Sheriff's Department, Kern County District Attorney's Office and Kern County court system have failed to produce the investigation reports. The next day, on June 28 or 29, 1984,Bill Rutledge rearrested Plaintiff and refused to let Plaintiff see the warrant. Plaintiff contends that to date Kern County has not produced the warrant. Plaintiff further alleges that Bill Rutledge, Human Services, the District Attorney's office and even Kern County judges have joined in the conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights and have ratified the acts.
In his sixth claim, Plaintiff alleges that he was illegally in custody from June 29, 1984 to July 5, 1984, at which time he posted bail. Plaintiff and his wife then attempted to file grievances with the Department of Human Services, the Kern County Sheriff's Department, and the Kern County District Attorney. They also went to speak to a Congressman and Assemblyman in Bakersfield, California in order to file complaints against all Kern County employees involved in Plaintiff's case. Additionally, Plaintiff's wife went to Sacramento and filed a criminal complaint with the California Attorney General. Within 48 to 72 hours after Plaintiff's wife returned from filing the complaint, Bill Rutledge and Cory Taylor were in Plaintiff's neighborhood looking for more alleged victims. On August 31, 1984, Bill Rutledge rearrested Plaintiff for multiple counts of child molestation, and Plaintiff's wife also was charged. While being transported to Kern County Jail, Bill Rutledge asked Plaintiff if he and his wife were going to keep filing complaints. Plaintiff asserts that Kern County and the California Judicial System joined in the conspiracy to deny Plaintiff and his family their constitutional rights.
In his seventh claim, Plaintiff alleges that O.C. Stiles and the Human Services department failed to protect his children, Melissa Gonzales and Tyson Gonzales. Plaintiff also alleges that Cory Taylor was allowed to coerce, brainwash and intimidate Melissa and Tyson Gonzales into making false allegations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that from June 26, 1984 to December 1, 1988, O.C. Stiles (Director of Human Services), Larry Klier (Kern County Sheriff) and Ed Jagels (Kern County District Attorney allowed employees to form a conspiracy with the sole purpose and intention to make sure that Plaintiff was convicted of child molestation. Plaintiff asserts that certain conduct of defendants shock the conscience. This conduct includes the following: (1) multiple false charges/allegations filed against him from June 26, 1984 to December 1, 1988; (2) multiple false arrests against Plaintiff from June 26, 1984 to August 31,1984 with no probable cause; (3) failure to commence an investigation before arresting Plaintiff on June 26, 1984; (4) failure to provide an arrest warrant on June 28 or 29, 1984; (5) failure to the judicial system to protect his children from Cory Taylor and Bill Rutledge and for assigning Susan Skabelund and County Counsel as attorneys for Plaintiff's children; (6) failure of Sheriff Larry Klier to control deputies from coercing, brainwashing and intimidating his children, ages 6 and 4; (7) knowing participation by all defendants and agencies, including superior court judges; (8) hiding, altering or planting evidence by all agencies and defendants, with superior court judges covering for violations; (9) Attorney General John Van De Camp hiding all constitutional violations committed by Ed Jagels and/or the Kern County District Attorney's Office; (9) willful cover-up of constitutional violations by all defendants, government agencies, including all agency heads, judges and the California Attorney General's Office.1
In his eighth claim, Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 1984, after his third illegal arrest by Bill Rutledge, the Kern County judicial system, from district attorneys to judges, joined in a conspiracy to keep Plaintiff from seeing his wife or children. Plaintiff's bail was increased from $50,000 to $1,000,000, despite defendants knowing that he had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial