Rogers v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 May 2019
• Docket Number: No. 2:17-cv-1490 JAM DB PS,2:17-cv-1490 JAM DB PS
• Parties: KIM EDWARD ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

KIM EDWARD ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-1490 JAM DB PS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 21, 2019

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, Kim Rogers, is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court are defendant's motion to dismiss, and plaintiff's motions for leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 35, 36, 38, 43.)

For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's most recent motion for leave to amend will be granted. The undersigned will also recommend that plaintiff's sixth amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on July 18, 2017, by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The previously assigned magistrate judge granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

//// service of the complaint on defendant James A. Williams.¹ (ECF No. 3.) On May 9, 2019, plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.)

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 24, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) On October 15, 2018, the first amended complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On October 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.) Therein, plaintiff complains that defendant James Williams, a Special Deputy United States Marshal, "coerced and intimidated [plaintiff] into an involuntary confession[.]" (Third Am. Compl. (ECF No. 31) at 6.²)

On November 29, 2018, defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 35.) On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) Then, on January 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 38.)

On February 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, a motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint, and a proposed sixth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 42-44.) On March 1, 2019, defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 45.) On March 4, 2019, the undersigned took the pending motions under submission. (ECF No. 46.)

STANDARD

I. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim torelief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). In general, pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff "can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001).

////

////

////

ANALYSIS

I. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant seeks dismissal of the third amended complaint because plaintiff "has once again provided no factual basis for his claim[.]" (Def.'s MTD (ECF No. 35-1) at 2.) Review of the third amended complaint finds that defendant's argument is well taken.

In this regard, the complaint alleges, in a vague and conclusory manner, that on November 15, 2014, "the California Highway Patrol" violated plaintiff's "4^th Amendment right[.]" (Third Am. Compl. (ECF No. 31) at 5.) Thereafter, defendant James A. Williams, "coerced and intimidated [plaintiff] into an involuntary confession[.]" (Id. at 5-6.)

"When a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury's decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial, and the harm occasioned by such an unconscionable action is redressable in an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2nd Cir. 1997). "In addition, under the Fourteenth Amendment, an interrogation is coercive . . . when, in light of the totality of the circumstances, an officer's tactics are so extreme as to undermine a suspect's ability to exercise free will." Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles, 270 F.Supp.3d 1163, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (citing Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 2003))

Here, the third amended complaint fails to allege what false information defendant Williams allegedly created or how defendant Williams' interrogation tactics were extreme. And no further allegations are alleged against defendant Williams. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claims and must allege facts that state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertions' devoid of 'further factual enhancements.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree ofparticularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Accordingly, defendant Williams' motion to dismiss must be granted.

II. Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File a Fourth and Fifth Amended Complaint

On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) And on January 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. (ECF No. 38.) However, plaintiff has since filed a motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint. (ECF No. 43.) The filing of an amended complaint supersedes a previously filed complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

Accordingly, plaintiff's motions for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and for leave to file a fifth amended complaint will be denied as having been rendered moot.

III. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sixth Amended Complaint

On February 22, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint along with a proposed sixth amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 43 & 44.) Leave to amended pursuant to "Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires." AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ("The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."). However, courts "need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile." Id. The "court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where the court has already given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint." Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, the undersigned cannot yet find that granting plaintiff further leave to amend would prejudice the opposing party, is sought in bad faith; would produce an undue delay, or would be futile. Therefore, and in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the undersigned will grant plaintiff this final request for further leave to amend.

////

IV. Sixth Amended Complaint Screening

As noted above, plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma...