Lee v. Ehlenbach

Decision Date27 April 2018
Docket NumberCase No.: 1:18-cv-0247 - DAD - JLT
PartiesRONNIE LEE, Plaintiff, v. MARTHA P. EHLENBACH, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

RONNIE LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
MARTHA P. EHLENBACH, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0247 - DAD - JLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 27, 2018


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff contends the defendants, which include two state attorneys and two judicial officers with the Kern County Superior Court, have violated several provisions of federal law and engaged in "a governmental statewide conspiracy against the Plaintiff." (Doc. 1 at 3) For the following reasons, the Court recommends Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and the complaint DISMISSED without leave to amend.

I. Background

Plaintiff is a former prisoner, and reports that while in custody, some of his "personal property that was negligently destroyed by a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Prison Official." (Doc. 1 at 4) Plaintiff asserts that he "applied for relief with the California Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board who then instructed the plaintiff to pay filing fees of $25.00 before action could be taken ... [and] the plaintiff paid them." (Id.) However, Plaintiff asserts the Board then notified him that "does not act on claims under $100.00." (Id.)

Page 2

In February 2015, while Plaintiff remained in state custody, he "filed a claim [i]n the Kern County Superior Court for the State of California for reimburstment (sic) of his personal property," thereby initiating Case No. S1500CL290301, which was assigned to Commissioner Linda Etienne.1 Plaintiff identified North Kern State Prison, Correctional Officer Borquez, California Victims Compensation Claims Board, and the State of California as defendants in his complaint. Marta Ehlenbach represented the prison and Officer Borquez in the action, and Elizabeth O'Donnell represented the State of California.

On May 4, 2015, defendants Borquez and North Kern State Prison filed a motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, which was supported by a declaration from Ms. Ehlenbach. Commissioner Etienne granted the motion on June 3, 2015, and Plaintiff was "declared a vexatious litigant within the meaning of CCP 391.1." Pursuant to the terms of the order, Plaintiff was ordered to post "a security bond in the amount of $12,750.00" within thirty days.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015. However, the court's docket indicates that Plaintiff defaulted on the appeal. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the order requiring him to post a security bond, the case was dismissed in its entirety on August 26, 2015.

In January 2016, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ with Kern County Superior Court, thereby initiating an appeal in Case No. AP-16-00001, which was assigned to Judge Stephen Schuett. On January 5, 2016, Judge Schuett denied the petition for writ.

On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, thereby initiating Case No. F073728. On March 19, 2016, the court issued an order informing Plaintiff:

You are a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Your petition for writ of mandate was mistakenly filed by the clerk of this court without the requisite order. The clerk is directed to file and serve this

Page 3

notice on you and the other parties informing you that your action shall be automatically dismissed unless within 10 days of the date of this notice you obtain an order from the presiding justice of this court permitting the filing. Such an order will not be issued unless you demonstrate that your litigation has merit and your litigation was not filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The filing of this notice shall automatically stay this litigation.

Plaintiff requested to proceed with his petition, and the court found Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that his petition [had] merit." Therefore, his application for permission to proceed in the Fifth District was denied, and the case was ordered closed on July 16, 2016. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration was denied on August 11, 2016.

II. Proceeding in forma pauperis

As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may authorize the commencement of an action "without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Ninth Circuit has held "permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not a right; denial of an in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant's right to due process." Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963)). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to proceed IFP. O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 600-01. In making a determination, the court "must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is presented with a Hobson's choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing life's plain necessities." Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

Here, the Court recommends Plaintiff's application to proceed be denied because, as discussed below, the complaint fails to state a meritorious claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) ("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

Page 4

action is frivolous or without merit"); Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).

III. Screening Requirement

When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is "frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

A plaintiff's claim is frivolous "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). In other words, a complaint is frivolous where the litigant sets "not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

IV. Pleading Standards

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement affirming the court's jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the complaint is to inform the defendant of the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when

Page 5

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

V. Allegations

Plaintiff contends that Marta Ehlenbach, Elizabeth O'Donnell, and Commissioner Etienne "conspired to effectuate the granting of a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant for purposes of eluding the civil justice system and eluding the due administration of law and civil procedure." (Doc. 1 at 4) In addition, Plaintiff asserts Judge Schuett "acted in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT