Redick v. Sonora Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 08 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-00287-NONE-SAB |
| Parties | STANLEY E. REDICK, III, Plaintiff, v. SONORA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Stanley E. Redick, III (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Following screening orders issued on March 17, 2021 and May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 26, 2021. (ECF No. 11.) On August 10, 2021, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims in his second amended complaint, and granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) More than thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the Court's August 10, 2021 order.[1] For the reasons discussed herein, it is recommended that Plaintiff's second amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim, and this action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order, and failure to prosecute.
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 exercised 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.
Plaintiff's second amended complaint was essentially filed in the form of three separate complaints. Each “sub-complaint” has its own caption page and signature block. However, the second sub-complaint's signature block did not contain Plaintiff's signature, while the other two did.
The first sub-complaint names the Sonora Police Department, an Officer Malon, and an Officer Bowly as defendants (the “Police Department Defendants”). (Id. at 1-4.) The second sub-complaint names the Tuolumne County District Attorney's Office, Laura Kreig, and Eric Hovetter as defendants (the “District Attorney Defendants”). (Id. at 5-10.) Against the Police Department Defendants and the District Attorney Defendants named in the first two sections, Plaintiff brings the same claims, entitled as follows: (1) mistaken identity; (2) malicious false accusations establishing probable cause; (3) misconduct; (4) gross negligence; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) abuse of process. (Id. at 1, 5.)
The third section of the filing names the Tuolumne County Jail, and Booking Officer King C1560 as defendants (the “Jail Defendants”). (Id. at 11.) Against the Jail Defendants, Plaintiff brings claims entitled as: (1) misconduct; (2) gross negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) abuse of process. (Id.)
While not listed in the caption where Plaintiff listed the claims, in the body of each of the three sub-complaints, Plaintiff also requests Defendants be held accountable for violations under the Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1. (Id. at 3, 6-7, 12.)
Plaintiff seeks thirty-three million dollars in damages. Each sub-complaint appears to seek this amount against each group of defendants. However, each sub-complaint contains largely identical allegations against an unspecified defendant or unspecified defendants.
The Court shall now summarize the common and distinct aspects of each sub-complaint below. Plaintiff's first sub-complaint consists of five paragraphs that are each reproduced and in their entirety in the second sub-complaint. Paragraphs 4 and 5 from the first sub-complaint are also reproduced verbatim in Plaintiff's third sub-complaint.
Plaintiff seeks 33 million dollars against “the Defendant, for the [d]amages they caused with their mistaken identity using [Plaintiff's] information and photos, without [Plaintiff's] consent on local news (Tuolumne County Incident Feed), police reports and media and falsely stating [Plaintiff] committed crimes at Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Sonora Ca. on” November 3, 2018, and November 10, 2018. (Id. at 1, ¶ 1.)[2] Plaintiff argues there “was no factual [b]asis to establish [p]robable [c]ause based o[n] the malicious false accusations, by witnesses or the Defendant[']s false recollection to get a warrant or arrest [Plaintiff] as the totality of circumstances known to the Defendant to determine if a prudent person would conclude a fair probability that [Plaintiff] had committed a crime, as in this case establishing probable cause would not have been possible as the evidence to prove [Plaintiff's] innocence was at the Defendant's grasp and because of pure negligence by the Defendant the evidence was overlooked that could have exonerated [Plaintiff] from the beginning.” (Id. at 1-2, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff proffers that on November 10, 2018, “the Defendant improperly handled the witness statements, and forensic evidence as the Defendant's questions to witnesses [] created false recollections and false memories used to get a false warrant and false arrest leading to false imprisonment for crimes [Plaintiff] did not commit [as Plaintiff] never committed a crime nor was [] at Lowe's Sonora” on November 3, 2018, nor was Plaintiff “involved in [n]or did [he] commit a crime on [November 10, 2018] at Lowe's Sonora as stated by the Defendant[]s.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff states that due “to Defendant[']s gross malicious negligence, [Plaintiff] was subject to unreasonable force being detained for crimes [he] did not commit when [he] went to inquire about the warrant.” Plaintiff was then detained and “not told what the crimes were or why [he] was being detained until 3 days later during [his] false imprisonment for crimes [he] did not commit all stenting from the [n]egligence by the Defendant [who] forced [Plaintiff] to be incarcerated with [his] cousin whom just got sentenced by the same District Attorney in [Plaintiff's] criminal case Laura Kreig, for 1st degree murder.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.)
While not listed in the caption where Plaintiff listed the claims, in the body of the complaint Plaintiff requests the Court hold the unspecified Defendant(s) .” (Id. at 3, ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff states that the “[a]buse of [p]rocess by the Defendant's [sic] [in] obtain[ing] a false warrant” violated his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution; that he was never guilty of these crimes; that he was falsely imprisoned, arrested, and detained; that his name was slandered; and that he was left to fight for his freedom for 2 years, facing trial two times. (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff again...
To continue reading
Request your trial