Kidwell v. Collins

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00709-BAK (BAM) (PC)
• Parties: SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, Plaintiff, v. JASON COLLINS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, Plaintiff, v. JASON COLLINS, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00709-BAK (BAM) (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 27, 2022

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND AS CONSTRUED FOLLOWING THE FILING OF PLAINTIFF'S LETTER DATED JUNE 21, 2022 (DOC. 8.)

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE,, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell^[1] is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 29, 2022, this action was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the Sacramento Division of this Court. Defendants removed the action asserting this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1.) Defendants request screening of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Id. at 2-3.)

On May 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Alison Claire issued an Order indicating venue was proper in both the Sacramento and Fresno Divisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and noting Defendants' notice of removal states venue is proper in the Fresno Division. (Doc. 4.) Magistrate Judge Claire ultimately found: “[i]t therefore appears likely that any potentially cognizable claims will lie against defendants located within Kings County and that this action should be transferred to the Fresno Division of this court.” (Id. at 3.) The parties were then provided 21 days within which to show cause in writing why the action should not be transferred to the Fresno Division. (Id.)

On May 24, 2022, Defendants filed a notice of consent to the transfer. (Doc. 5.)

On June 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Claire issued an order transferring this action from the Sacramento Division to the Fresno Division, directing that all future filings reflect the new Fresno case number and be filed with the Fresno Division at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721. (Doc. 6.)

On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter dated June 7, 2022 bearing the previous Sacramento Division case number (2:22-cv-00738-AC (PC)), advising the Clerk of the Court that certain documents he sent via U.S. Mail had been returned and marked undeliverable. (Doc. 8.) A review of the documents attached to Plaintiff's letter reveals Plaintiff intended to object to the removal of the action from state court to federal court despite the document's title. (See id. at 1014 [titled “Objection to Transfer of Case, as Case is under the Tom Bane Act State § 1983, not Federal”].)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Objections

Initially, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff signed and dated his objections or opposition on May 22, 2022; in other words, within the 21-day objection period provided in Magistrate Judge Claire's Order issued May 3, and before the June 13, 2022, Order transferring this action to the Fresno Division. Additionally, despite Plaintiff's protestation to the contrary in his letter of June 21, 2022, the address Plaintiff used in his attempt to file his objections with this Court was not correct. Plaintiff's proofs of service reveal he directed his documents to the Court as follows:

“United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 2500 Tulare Stareet [sic], Room 1501, Hanford, California 93230.” (See Doc. 8 at 4-5.) The correct address for this Court is 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501, Fresno, California 93721 ^[2] Plaintiff did not use the correct address and therefore, the documents were returned to him marked undeliverable.

Nonetheless, the Court turns to the substance of Plaintiff's objections to the “transfer” of this action from the state court to federal court. Plaintiff contends “this case is under the TOM BANE ACT the State § 1983, Not Federal.” (Doc. 8 at 10.) He alleges this “Court house has a history of forcing Prisoners to only file §1983's within this court without proper Jurisdiction or Authority to do so,” in violation of the “Equal Protection Clause as this Strict Rule Making of this Court has not been placed upon the General Public with Equal Effect.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends Magistrate Judge Claire “dismissed Defendants that have been accused without Proper Justification” and without waiting for Plaintiff's objections. (Id. at 10-11.) He contends the action was “done knowingly and willfully to deter and impede upon cases so that Defendants will be given Illegal undue Immunities ....” (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff contends Magistrate Judge Claire “has over stepped jurisdiction and demonstrated clear prejudice and bias” and that she “has no Immunity under these laws, and no mens rea is required to file against him as a Prerequisite.” (Id.) Plaintiff further contends the “Defendants are accused of committing crimes, as such there is a conflict” and the Attorney General's Office should “recuse themselves ....” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff concludes: “if this court chooses to transfer this case this case needs to be lab[e]led under the State Tom Banes Act an[d] laws governing the TOM BANES ACT,” and that a denial of Plaintiff's request “will be Denying Plaintiff his Constitutional Rights to Meaningful Access to the Courts and enforcing rules that have not been placed upon the General Public Violating the Equal Protection Clause.” (Id. at 14.)

2. Analysis

First, to the degree Plaintiff asserts Magistrate Judge Claire “dismissed” any Defendant, he is incorrect. Magistrate Judge Claire's Order of May 3, 2022 did not dismiss any defendant. Rather, Magistrate Judge Claire interpreted Plaintiff's complaint to assert claims arising “under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” noting that “the CDCR Appeals Office is not a proper defendant” and that the “allegations against [Defendants] Allison and Gipson, as currently pled,” were “based solely on their role as supervisors.” (Doc. 4 at 2-3.) Neither the CDCR Appeals Office, nor Allison or Gipson, was dismissed from this action. Because Plaintiff has misunderstood Magistrate Judge Claire's Order, the undersigned will not address Plaintiff's related and unwarranted claims of prejudice and bias.

Second, this Court will not address Plaintiff's conclusory and unsupported assertion that the Court “forces” prisoner plaintiffs to file § 1983 actions in this Court in the absence of proper jurisdiction.

Notably too, this Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Defendants have asked this Court to screen Plaintiff's complaint as stated in their notice of removal. (Doc. 1 at 2.) While Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened, screening will determine whether Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before this Court, and delays are inevitable despite the Court's best efforts. Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due course.

a. Plaintiff's Complaint

Next, in his objections, Plaintiff contends this case arises under the “Tom Bane Act.” California Civil Code § 52.1 is known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. The relevant subdivisions of the statute are:

(b) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.

(c) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (b), may institute and prosecute in their own name and on their own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (b).

(d) An action brought pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) may be filed either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred or in the superior court for the county in which a person whose conduct complained of resides or has their place of business. An action brought by the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (b) also may be filed in the superior court for any county wherein the Attorney General has an office, and in that case, the jurisdiction of the court shall extend throughout the state.

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b)-(d). California's Tom Bane Civil...