Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Jeanette Lucille Flowers A.K.A. Evangelist Kimmons v. County of Sacramento

March 10, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiff, Jeannette Lucille Flowers, a.k.a. Evangelist Kimmons, (the "plaintiff") is proceeding without counsel.*fn1 She filed a complaint (the "Complaint") on January 20, 2011, alleging a violation of, among other things, her constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, false arrest and use of excessive force, negligence, assault, battery, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all arising from her arrest and detention "by Officers of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department." (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1.) Simultaneously, plaintiff filed an in forma pauperis application. (Dkt. No. 2.) For the reasons stated below, the undersigned grants the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

II. Screening of the Complaint

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners."); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 ("It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.").

Under the "notice pleading" standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff's complaint must provide, in part, a "short and plain statement" of plaintiff's claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it does not contain "'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). "'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.'" Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). The court accepts "all facts alleged as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 588 F.3d 1237, 1241 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009). The court is "not, however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 1071 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and give the plaintiff an opportunity to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.

Upon review of the complaint, the undersigned will dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the pleading standards described above. However, plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

The federal civil cover sheet filed by plaintiff indicates that she is suing defendants for a violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, Document No. 1-1.) Plaintiff alleges that she is a "prominent black evangelist minister" in Sacramento who had a "ministry at the Sacramento Main Jail" for "some 15 years." (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-15.) She alleges that, "[a]s a result of her ministry" she "became aware over the years of systemic human rights abuses taking place in the jail and in an attempt to curtail these abuses became vocal." (Id., ¶ 16.) She alleges that she "rose within the ranks of the NAACP to chair the Legal Redress Committee" and was placed upon "internal citizen review committees" to help end abuses within the jail. (Id., ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff alleges that "coinciding" with her "increased activity promoting civil rights within the jail," she began to "see herself being treated with increasing hostility by jail personnel." (Id.) Then, while plaintiff was "dropping off her elderly mother at the jail to visit an incarcerated family member," plaintiff was "detained," by "officers from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department," and arrested, allegedly "without probable cause." (Id., ¶¶ 18, 33.) Plaintiff alleges that during her arrest, "without justification," she was "thrown to the ground, had a knee thrust into her back and her arms wrenched." (Id., ¶¶ 20, 33.) Plaintiff alleges that her arrest was "false," and that she suffered a battery and required "multiple surgeries" as a result. (Id., ¶¶ 18-21.)

Plaintiff alleges that the events surrounding her arrest "were at least in part due to what the law enforcement officers and jailers perceived to be Plaintiff's role as a black minister and civil rights advocate." (Id., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff also alleges that those events "were at least in part due to what the Deputies perceived as Plaintiff's race and her work as a prominent black civil rights advocate." (Id., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sheriff McGinness and defendant County of Sacramento are liable for her injuries because they have allowed a "pattern, practice, or custom" whereby deputies "summarily punish" those who "question or somehow fail the Deputies' 'attitude test'", and a policy of deliberate indifference and hostility to those "community leaders" who "advocate for" the rights of inmates. (Id., ¶ 22-23.)

Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered emotional distress arising from the incident, from the subsequent criminal prosecution against her, from "witnessing her elderly mother battered in front of her," and from defendants' failure to provide for her "medical and psychological needs" while she was in their custody. (Id., ¶¶ 57, 61.)

These allegations do not provide sufficient notice of the conduct that forms the basis of plaintiff's claims for relief. First, it is unclear whether plaintiff is alleging that her arrest took place on December 28, 2009 or December 28, 2010. (Compare Complaint, ¶ 3 with ¶ 18.)

Most importantly, however, is the fact that plaintiff has failed to allege how some of the named defendants-defendants Marsden and Maring-were personally involved in allegedly violating her rights. Plaintiff has the responsibility to allege facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Because plaintiff does not make any factual allegations as to these ...

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.