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.

Cassandra C. Olague v. County of Sacramento; Sacramento County Board of Supervisors; County of Sacramento Child

May 13, 2013

CASSANDRA C. OLAGUE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES; ROGER DICKINSON; JIMMIE YEE; SUSAN PETERS; ROBERTA MACGLASHAN; DON NOTTLI; CHERYL BOURESSA; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 7,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants County of Sacramento (sued erroneously herein as Sacramento County Child Protective Services and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors), Roger Dickinson, Jimmie Yee, Susan Peters, Roberta MacGlashan, Don Nottoli, and Cheryl Bouressa (collectively, the "County Defendants") move to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). Dckt. No. 51. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff's first amended complaint is very similar to the original complaint she filed on February 4, 2011, which was dismissed in its entirety. Compl., Dckt. No. 1; First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), Dckt. No. 47; see also Dckt. Nos. 46, 49. The first amended complaint alleges that in the year 2000, plaintiff and her daughter, Samantha, began to live with Kenneth Davis. FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiff contends that in or about January 2003, she and her daughter moved out of the house they shared with Mr. Davis. However, from January 2003 until 2006, Samantha continued to live with Mr. Davis on weeknights due to plaintiff's work schedule. Id. Plaintiff alleges that in July 2006, Mr. Davis ordered Samantha to leave his home, and did not have contact with her again for over a year. Id.

On or about January 12, 2008, plaintiff allowed Samantha to spend a weekend with Mr. Davis and his wife, Tracy Davis. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that during that visit, Mr. and Mrs. Davis "began working in concert to unlawfully take custody of Samantha for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of her parental rights and to enrich themselves, with monies provided by federal and state aid for dependent children." Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 15, 2008, Mr. Davis requested custody of Samantha, but plaintiff refused. Id. ¶ 14. According to plaintiff, Mr. and Mrs. Davis then began to use threats and intimidation in order to coerce plaintiff into giving them custody, and they also began to influence Samantha to leave plaintiff's custody without plaintiff's consent. Id.

Plaintiff contends that on or about January 18, 2008, she allowed Samantha to visit plaintiff's sister, Christina Meza. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that during the visit, Meza, Mr. Davis, Mrs. Davis, Ricardo Guzman, and others worked in concert to remove Samantha from plaintiff's custody without plaintiff's consent. Id. According to plaintiff, her sister Meza and Guzman "delivered" Samantha to Mr. and Mrs. Davis, who took custody of Samantha and then "began to use intimidation to keep plaintiff away from her daughter." Id. Plaintiff alleges that Samantha refused to return to plaintiff's custody and Mr. and Mrs. Davis refused to return her to plaintiff's custody. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 7, 2008, plaintiff called the Sacramento Police Department to report that Mr. and Mrs. Davis had unlawful custody of Samantha and to ask for the police department's assistance in "recovering" Samantha. Id. ¶ 16. Later that day, the police went to Mr. and Mrs. Davis's home and took Samantha from the home. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 8, 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, Meza, Guzman, and others began working in concert with Robert Kitay,*fn1 a private attorney, to use the Sacramento Superior Court "as a tool to kidnap Samantha." Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff contends that in furtherance of that conspiracy, Kitay made threatening phone calls to plaintiff demanding that plaintiff give custody of Samantha to Mr. Davis. Id.

According to plaintiff, on or about February 14, 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, Meza, Guzman, and Kitay "conspired to use fraud, perjury, forgery, and deceit to file a meritless law suit in the Superior Court . . . requesting the Court to grant Davis custody of Samantha." Id.

¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that Kitay misrepresented to the court that he had given plaintiff notice of Mr. Davis's petition for guardianship when in fact he had not. Id. Plaintiff contends that the court relied on false and misleading declarations filed in support of Mr. Davis's petition for guardianship without giving plaintiff an opportunity to be heard, and granted temporary custody of Samantha to Mr. Davis, with visitation rights for plaintiff.*fn2 Id.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 21, 2008, the County of Sacramento, Cheryl Bouressa (an employee of Sacramento County Child Protective Services), and Does 1 through 4 agreed to aid Mr. and Mrs. Davis and Meza in the conspiracy, in that they had actual knowledge of the fraud used in obtaining custody of Samantha and knew that plaintiff did not pose a threat to Samantha, yet they recommended that Mr. Davis be granted custody because plaintiff is Latina and Mr. and Mrs. Davis are white. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. and Mrs. Davis, Guzman, Meza, Kitay, the County of Sacramento, Bouressa, and Does 1 through 7 thereafter continued to work in concert to obstruct justice and knowingly and purposefully refused to comply with the order granting plaintiff visitation rights. Id. According to the complaint, Samantha was later removed from Mr. Davis's custody for safety reasons. Id.

Plaintiff further alleges that on March 6, 2008, the Sacramento County Superior Court granted plaintiff supervised parenting time with Samantha one evening a week for two or three hours plus three hours on the weekend. Id. ¶ 19. The maternal grandmother was ordered to supervise the parenting time. Id. Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2008 she "complained that Mr. Davis had interfered with her visitation" and the Court modified the order to require supervision by an agency or mutually-agreed third party. Id.

Plaintiff contends that on September 25, 2008, Meza and Guzman replaced Mr. and Mrs. Davis as Samantha's temporary guardians. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that, after the September 25 hearing, defendants County of Sacramento, Cheryl Bouressa, and Does 1 through 7 "deprived plaintiff of her visitation rights with Samantha until June 15, 2009" by depriving her of "approximately 42 visits." Id. Plaintiff contends that she was deprived of her visitation rights without cause, notice or a hearing, which was a "violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Id. Plaintiff contends that these actions were "conscious shocking and unreasonable" because the action "served no legitimate governmental interest." Id. ¶ 22.

Plaintiff further alleges that the County Defendants have adopted, implemented, promulgated and executed policies that have caused plaintiff a deprivation of her rights, including policies allowing: (1) race discrimination, (2) the use of the Sacramento County Superior Court to violate individuals' civil rights, (3) conspiracies to kidnap people and commit other crimes, (4) payment for the legal defense of County officers and employees while knowing that those employees have committed crimes and violated civil rights, (5) covering up crimes and violating civil rights, (6) controlling employees with a ...


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.