Woodrow v. Cnty. of Merced, 1: 13-cv-01505-AWI-BAM

• Decision Date: 12 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1: 13-cv-01505-AWI-BAM,1: 13-cv-01505-AWI-BAM
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: CHANNON WOODROW, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., Defendants.

CHANNON WOODROW, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., Defendants.

No. 1: 13-cv-01505-AWI-BAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 12, 2015

ORDER SCREENING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

30 DAY DEADLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Channon Woodrow ("Plaintiff") proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") is before the Court for screening.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

Page 2

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

While persons proceeding in pro se are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff's Complaint, touching on a variety of alleged wrongs, alleges nine counts¹ against multiple defendants.² Plaintiff's complaint appears to challenge several arrests and court proceedings. Plaintiff also challenges the conduct of various public officials, including judges, attorneys, and police officers regarding a criminal action brought against him and an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff also challenges the conduct of several private actors who are allegedly responsible for the unlawful detainer action and theft of personal property.

In May 2013, Plaintiff alleges Officer B and Anna Hazel arrested Plaintiff pursuant to a warrant which he was never shown and held him in a "drunk cell." (doc. 7 p. 7-8.)³ Both Officer

Page 3

B and Anna Hazel are alleged to be Merced Sherriff investigators. (Doc. 7 p. 5.) He was arrested on Friday morning and did not see a Magistrate for 3 days over the weekend and was delayed being brought before a Magistrate. (Doc. 7 p. 9.) Plaintiff alleges they had no right to "incarcerate" him. (id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Anna Hazel was biased in her criminal investigation and made false statements in her police reports. (Doc. 7 p.10.) Plaintiff appears to allege that Anna Hazel conspired and colluded with others to deprive Plaintiff of property. (Doc. 7 p. 11.)⁴

Defendant Walter Wall is a Merced District Attorney. Plaintiff alleges that Wall did not properly indict, investigate or charge Plaintiff with a crime. (Doc. 7 p. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that failure to properly review information led to Plaintiff's false indictment, false arrests and false confinement. (Doc. 7 p. 12.) Wall and Anna Hazel called Plaintiff "sovereign citizen" to demean and subordinate Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that his home was illegally searched and property was unlawfully seized. (Doc. 7 p. 15) Plaintiff was incarcerated for 10 days.

Plaintiff was arrested again on June 12, 2013 by defendant Officer Chris Jaskowiak in court during a court appearance by Plaintiff. (Doc. 7 p. 16.) Plaintiff's knee was injured in the arrest.

Plaintiff alleges unlawful conditions of release where placed on him by the presiding judicial officer, including a mental evaluation. (Doc. 7 p. 17-18.) He was silenced in court and denied process and was caused emotional distress. (Doc. 7 p. 18.) Plaintiff alleges that all defendants conspired with each other involving unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, intimidation, and malicious prosecution. (Doc. 7 p. 19.)

Plaintiff also alleges private entities harmed him in seizure of his real property. (Doc. 7 p.18 et seq.) Plaintiff alleges his home was seized by defendants Randal Naiman, Naiman Law Group and Salvdori Realty. Plaintiff alleges that the seizure was improper and that the unlawful detainer violated his rights. (Doc. 7 p. 20.) Plaintiff alleges that foreclosure was improper.

Page 4

Plaintiff alleges that the private entities conspired to deprive plaintiff of his property. (Doc. 7 p. 21.) Plaintiff states that the conspiracy is shown by the proximity of his arrest and the filing of the unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff alleges that his rights have been violated:

- Count 1: (1) the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and arrest, (2) the right not to be deprived of liberty and property without due process of law, (3) excessive force, (4) just compensation for taking of property (against Anna Hazel, Officer B, Chris Jaskowiak, County of Merced Sherriff Department and Jail Division, Superior Court of California and County of Merced) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

- Count 2: abuse of process, intimidating party and plaintiff, obstruction of justice and due process, access to grand jury and right to confront accuser (against Walter Wall, Anna Hazel, Chris Jaskowiak, County of Merced Sherriff Department and Jail Division, Superior Court of California and County of Merced) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

- Count 3: Conspiracy against all defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §241.

- Count 4, deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §242 against all defendants.

- Count 5, gross negligence against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1986 against all defendants (negligent training and supervision).

- Count 6, breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants.

- Count 7, violations of various California Penal Code sections, including 115, 118, 118.1.

- Count 8, deprivation of right to property pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1982.

- Count 9, False indictment and criminal suit pursuant to California Penal Code §182.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 8

Plaintiff's complaint does not contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of

Page 5

Civil Procedure, the complaint or amended complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). While detailed allegations are not required, a plaintiff must set forth "the grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]" which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. . . ." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Plaintiff's complaint is neither short nor plain. Plaintiff's Complaint totals thirty-six pages and over 120 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff's complaint does not clearly set forth the factual allegations underlying his claims. Plaintiff fails to describe specific actions taken each of the defendants named in his complaint that violated his constitutional rights. Many of the allegations are conclusory and not sufficiently detailed as to what each individual defendant did to violate his rights. Some allegations are sufficiently specific but as explained below they are improperly joined. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should set forth facts, not conclusions, as to what each defendant did to violate Plaintiff's rights.

B. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 18

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims based on discrete events against different defendants. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.

Plaintiff may not assert multiple claims against unrelated defendants in this action.

Page 6

Plaintiff appears to allege an overarching conspiracy between various public officials and private...