Williams v. Vista

Decision Date31 March 2022
Docket Number1:21-cv-01661-JLT-SAB
PartiesPRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. J. VISTA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.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 (ECF Nos. 1, 12) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
I. INTRODUCTION

Prince Paul Raymond Williams (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.

On February 18, 2022, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims in his complaint, and granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) More than thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the Court's February 18, 2022 order. For the reasons discussed herein, it is recommended that Plaintiff's 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.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). 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.

III. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

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.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants J. Vista (“Vista), Janet Ziadeh (“Ziadeh”), Ka Moua (“Moua”), Kari Gilbert (“Gilbert”), Kerly Keokominh (“Keokominh”), Lisa Sprauge (“Sprauge”), and Tiffany Brubeck (“Brubeck”) (collectively Defendants), and proffers he is suing these Defendants for violations of his right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process and equal protection of the laws. (Compl. 1-3, [1] ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges both federal question jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff submits the complaint under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as under 15 U.S.C. § 645, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C. § 245, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 1035, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 18 U.S.C. § 912, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 18 U.S.C. § 1957, 18 U.S.C. § 1581, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, 19 U.S.C. § 1592, Civil Code § 1572, Penal Code § 529, 25 C.F.R. § 11.448, 31 U.S.C. § 3720D, 42 U.S.C. § 1994, 28 U.S.C. § 4101, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, 15 U.S.C. § 1692h, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i, 15 U.S.C. § 1692j, 5 U.S.C. § 3331, 31 U.S.C. § 3720D, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as bringing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff brings a total of twenty-three (23) individual counts for relief. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired with Plaintiff's former employers, to subject him to the unlawful practice of forcing him, as a condition of employment, to participate in and enforce a program requirement work-performance contract through wage garnishments in exchange for his labor, as a means of enrichment for the State Disbursement Unit, and repayment of two [2] separate alleged accounts of debt without affording due process and equal protection of the laws.” (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff worked for Aetna as a Health Concierge beginning approximately August 27, 2018. (Compl. 5.) On or about September 24, 2018, Plaintiff, through his work email, was provided two four-page documents entitled “INCOME WITHHOLDING FOR SUPPORT, ” dated September 1, 2018. (Id.) The first document stated the total amount to withhold from his paycheck was $413.00 per month, and the name of the Judge or issuing official was Defendant Brubeck. The second document stated the total amount to withhold was $150.00 per month, and had the name of the Judge or issuing official as J. Vista. Plaintiff alleges his wages were garnished bi-weekly beginning in September of 2018, until his termination in November of 2019. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges he was evicted on September 30, 2019, because he could not afford his living expenses as a result of the wages being withheld. (Id.) On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff provided a complaint to Aetna via email, wherein he described the harmful effects of the garnishment, and “harassment from his immediate supervisor.” (Id.) On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated from his employment. (Id.)

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff issue a complaint to the Department of Child Support Services. (Compl. 6.) On January 21, 2020, the Department of Child Support Services Deputy Direct Sprague and Director Gilbert replied via mail, stating the allegations do not meet the requirement elements required to establish an investigation. (Id.)

On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff began working for Southwest Traders. On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff suffered a lower back injury from slipping on black ice while working. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff was provided via email with two additional wage withholding documents in the amounts of $413.00 and $30.00 per month, respectively, one containing the name of the Judge or issuing official as Defendant Moua, and the other with Defendant Ziadeh.

(Id.)

Plaintiff received a letter dated February 2, 2021, addressed the Zurich American Insurance Company, stating the IWO requires a deduction of earnings. (Compl. 7.) Plaintiff states that on February 15, 2021, he received an email from Thomas Zhou, a claims examiner, stating a check would be mailed in the amount of $671.02, and he subsequently received a check in the amount of $479.30. On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff sent a complaint to the Department of Child Support Services. On March 9, 2021, Defendant Sprague replied via mail stating the relevant balances owed did not pertain to a loan, but to a court ordered obligation to pay child support. On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff resigned due to physical and financial injuries.

On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff began working for Drakaina Logistics as an Amazon delivery partner. Plaintiff received additional wage garnishment documents while in the presence of other employees. (Compl. 7-8.) The documents contained the names of the Judge or issuing official as Defendants Keokominh and Ziadeh. (Id.) On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff provided Drakaina Logistics with notice of possible violations of law relating to the garnishments. (Compl. 8.) On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff's wages were garnished, and on the same date, Plaintiff informed Drakaina Logistics of a notice of intent to sue. Plaintiff's wages were garnished again on September 24, 2021.

On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff provided Defendants Keokominh and Ziadeh with a notice demanding they cease and desist from seizing his property. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff's wages were again garnished. On that date, Plaintiff was terminated as a result of inquiring about the possible violation of law and company policy. (Compl. 9.) On October 11, 2021, Plaintiff provided notice of his intent to sue Defe...

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