Gradford v. Gray
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-00421-AWI-SAB |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. ANDY GRAY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
William J. Gradford ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff's complaint was screened and found to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a first amended complaint or notice of intent to proceed on the cognizable claim within thirty days. (Id.) On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wished to proceed on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action proceed on Plaintiff's claim that Andy Gray ("Defendant") extended his probation based on fabricated evidence in retaliation for Plaintiff filing complaints and all other claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court determines that the complaint "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (). The Court exercises its discretion to screen the plaintiff's complaint in this action to determine if it "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 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)).
In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
From around May 4, 2020, to February 5, 2021, Defendant was Plaintiff's probation officer. (Compl. 2,1 ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that during this time period, Defendant committed many retaliatory acts. (Id.) Plaintiff's brother, Alonzo Gradford2 is a well-known and well connected attorney in Stanislaus County. (Id.) Alonzo knows Defendant and his office is one block away from the probation office. (Id.) Alonzo also knows many Stanislaus County deputies. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed suit in the district court against his two prior probation officers, Officer Andrew Walzeack and Jose Delia Haya, that work with Defendant. Plaintiff has been wearing an ankle monitor for two years and was required to follow all court orders. (Id.) He has not been in any trouble and has continued to follow all court orders and obey all the terms of his probation. (Id.) Similar to his prior probation officers, Defendant refused to remove the ankle monitor or to allow him to transfer out of Stanislaus County due to the "constant and ongoing retaliation and retaliation tactics against [him] for 'speaking up' against many authorities and himself.". (Id. at 2-3.) Defendant continues to use the ankle monitor on Plaintiff to advance his personal retaliation. (Id. at 3.)
During the ten months when Defendant was Plaintiff's probation officer, Plaintiff would apply for jobs and those jobs that wanted an interview would change their mind after a few days. (Id.) Plaintiff stopped receiving his mail, especially mail from the unemployment office ("EDD"). (Id.) Plaintiff was approved and then suddenly all mail stopped especially after Plaintiff was constantly calling and writing to no avail. (Id.) Just recently, after Defendant was no longer his probation officer, Plaintiff received a letter from the EDD out of the blue and isnow receiving his mail. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that these are just some of the things that Defendant, Alonzo, and others involved are doing to him. (Id.)
Around January 12, 2021, Defendant came to Plaintiff's home by himself which was unusual and told him to call Defendant in about three weeks to get the exact date because he was going to be getting off probation. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff immediately began to yell and had tears of joy, stating, (Id. at 4.) Three weeks later, Plaintiff went to the probation office and Defendant was not in so he spoke to a woman. (Id.) He told the woman what Defendant had said and she told him that he was getting off probation around February 5, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff asked her for a citizen complaint form to file a complaint against Defendant. (Id.) Although Defendant was unaware, Plaintiff had been planning to file a complaint against Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff asked for Defendant's business card and the woman said that he would have to come back when Defendant was in. (Id.)
Plaintiff went back to the probation office the next day and Defendant called him back to his office and seemed very agitated and angry. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant spoke in a strong and angry tone stating that the lady had told him that Plaintiff got a complaint form, making Plaintiff believe he was being arrested. (Id. at 5.) Defendant asked Plaintiff what he had against probation. (Id.) As Plaintiff started to talk, Defendant cut him off asking him why he was writing all these complaints against probation. (Id.) Plaintiff told Defendant that he was all alone without any help and was trying to protect himself from all the retaliation. (Id.) Defendant continued to intimidate and harass Plaintiff, cutting him off from speaking or answering his very sarcastic but serious and angry questions. (Id.) Then, Defendant asked what Plaintiff had against Alonzo and again cut Plaintiff off before he could answer. (Id.)
Defendant was upset and abruptly stopped talking, turned to his computer, and started typing. (Id. at 6.) Defendant said, "You know what." (Id.) Plaintiff was extremely disappointed to the point of tears. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant "made stuff up" to justify keeping him on probation longer in order to stop Plaintiff from filing a complaint against Defendant. (Id.)Plaintiff alleges that Defendant took revenge because Plaintiff had filed a complaint against his co-workers. (Id.) Defendant gave Plaintiff a sheet that contained new probation terms and told Plaintiff that he was signed up for some classes that were to start in four days. (Id.) Plaintiff went to the class as directed and was told that he was not signed up for any class. (Id. at 6.)
In interrogatories in another case, Deputy McCarthy admitted that he coached Alonzo's son for many years. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant, Alonzo, and other family members were also involved in some way, shape or form and had knowledge of a drive by shooting against Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed a complaint with the State Bar against Alonzo. (Id.) Plaintiff called the city attorney in his other cases and explained what Defendant had done. (Id.) Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. (Id. at 13.)
A. Section 1983
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. In a section 1983 action, the complaint must allege that every defendant acted with the requisite state of mind to violate underlying constitutional provision. OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff alleges that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial