Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dwayne B. Burns v. Chris Dage

February 2, 2011

DWAYNE B. BURNS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRIS DAGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging, among other things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., as well as violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter . . . ." Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Starbuck's Corporation; Chris Dage, a Starbuck's regional manager; Chris Westergaard, a Starbuck's employee; Kelly Ann Troehler, a Starbuck's district manager; James Troehler, an official with the Tehama County Fire Department; City of Redding; Peter Hansen, the chief of police for the Redding Police Department; Jonathan Sheldon, a police officer for the Redding Police Department; and Will Williams, a police officer for the Redding Police Department.

Plaintiff alleges that, on January 23, 2009, he was asked to leave the Starbuck's store on South Bonnyview Road in Redding because defendant K. Troehler "didn't like Plaintiff's 'crooked face' and 'crooked mustache.'" Plaintiff states that he was born with a cleft lip and palate "resulting in a significant nasal deformity and facial disfigurement." According to plaintiff, K. Troehler only approached him after defendant Williams -- who happened to also be in the Starbuck's store at the time and against whom plaintiff "was in the process of filing a civil rights lawsuit" -- told K. Troehler who plaintiff was. After plaintiff argued with K. Troehler about whether she had the right to tell plaintiff to leave, K. Troehler called the police. According to plaintiff, he left the store before the police arrived, but was detained by defendant Sheldon along the side of Eastside Road. Plaintiff states that he was informed by Sheldon that he would be arrested for trespassing if he returned to the South Bonnyview Road Starbuck's store. Plaintiff then argued with Sheldon about whether K. Troehler could legally tell plaintiff to leave the Starbuck's store.

Plaintiff states that, following this incident, he ". . . made numerous complaints to Starbuck's management by letter, e-mail, and telephone regarding the unlawful actions of defendant K. Troehler in the hope of management correcting the actions of defendant Kelly Troehler." Plaintiff claims that, on January 26, 2009, he received a telephone call from defendant Westergaard who told plaintiff that he was "excluded" from all Starbuck's stores. After plaintiff told Westergaard that such an exclusion violated the law, Westergaard hung up. According to plaintiff, Starbuck's sent him an exclusion notice on January 28, 2009. This notice informed plaintiff that he was permanently banned from all Starbuck's locations world-wide. The notice warned that violation of the ban would result in arrest and civil prosecution. Plaintiff claims that "defendant Dage . . . ratified the actions of defendants K. Troehler and Westergaard."

Next, plaintiff states that he filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against defendant Williams on February 20, 2009, alleging civil rights violations unrelated to the Starbuck's incident.*fn1 Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in state court against Starbuck's, Kelly, Troehler, "and others" alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). According to plaintiff, that action was "erroneously dismissed in its entirety by a deputy clerk of the Superior Court of Shasta County on July 17, 2009." Plaintiff states that on April 15, 2009 -- just a few days after being served with the state court action -- defendant K. Troehler filed an application for a restraining order against plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that this was done in retaliation for his having to file a lawsuit against K. Troehler. As to defendant J. Troehler, who plaintiff alleges is K. Troehler's husband and an official with Tehama County, plaintiff claims that "L. Troehler assisted, aided, and abetted defendant K. Troehler in filing said retaliatory [restraining order] by committing the overt act of picking up necessary court documents from the office of the Shasta County Superior Court's civil clerk, and transporting them to defendant K. Troehler."

Returning to defendant Williams, plaintiff next claims that, "[o]n either April 20th or April 21st," Williams came to plaintiff's home in uniform and served him with a temporary restraining order. While at plaintiff's home, defendant Williams commented that the registration tags on plaintiff's vehicle had expired (which plaintiff claims was not true), and demanded to see plaintiff's registration. According to plaintiff, defendant Williams' duties did not include serving restraining orders and that he only did so, and then commented on the registration issue, "in an effort to intimidate Mr. Burns into dropping his lawsuit against defendants K. Troehler and Williams. . . ."

As to defendant Sheldon, plaintiff claims that "[t]he acts of defendants Sheldon and Williams described above deprived Mr. Burns of his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States." As to defendants Hansen and City of Redding, plaintiff claims that they are liable based on failure to adequately train Williams and presumably Sheldon.

Plaintiff asserts a total of nineteen claims for relief. Of those, the following are based on alleged violations of federal law:

1st Claim Violation of the ADA, Title III (against defendants K. Troehler, Westergaard, and Dage). 3rd Claim Violation of the ADA (against defendant Starbuck's Corporation). 5th Claim Violation of the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against defendant Sheldon). 12th Claim Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against defendants City of Redding and Hansen). 13th Claim Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against defendant Williams). 14th Claim Violation of the ADA, Section V (against defendants K. Troehler, J. Troehler, and Williams). 16th Claim Violation of the ADA, Section V (against defendant Starbuck's Corporation).

Plaintiff's remaining claims are based on alleged violations of state law and, as such, jurisdiction would be supplemental to the court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.