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.

Sanders v. Magic Metro Tactical Team

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 23, 2013

PHILLIP SANDERS, Plaintiff,
v.
MAGIC METRO TACTICAL TEAM, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING THIS ACTION (ECF No. 1) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Plaintiff Phillip Sanders, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on September 3, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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)).

"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570). "[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.'" Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557). Further, 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. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id . (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555).

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this action against the MAGIC Metro Tactical Team, Officer T. Gebhart, Officer Karsainsin, Attorney Richard Esquevel, Attorney Curtis Sok, Daljit Rakkar, Commissioner Bird, Judge Sanderson, and Judge Kapetan alleging violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments and false imprisonment under California Law.

Plaintiff alleges that he was set up by the MAGIC Metro officers when he was arrested on August 2, 2010. On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff left "anybobys market" and as he left the parking lot he was eating a burrito. (Compl. 3, 10, [1] ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff was stopped by two white police officers during daylight hours because his third window brake light was out. During an inventory search of the vehicle, the officers contended that they found a smaller than bean size drug. Plaintiff contends that he was never tested for drugs, no supplemental report was written, the drugs were not field tested, and the drug screening report came back the next day giving officers the opportunity to plan or say whatever they wanted in this classic set up. (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff was pulled over and Defendant Karsainsin approached his vehicle as Defendant Gebhart stayed back. (Id. at 10.) Defendant Karsainsin told Plaintiff he was pulled over because his window light was out. Defendant Gebhart ran Plaintiff's plates and Defendant Karsainsin returned and told Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Plaintiff was placed in the back of the patrol car and Defendants Karsainsin and Gebhart began "rummaging and vandalizing" Plaintiff's vehicle. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff remained in the car and yelled for help to people who were passing by. Officer Karsainsin called for a tow truck. (Id.) The tow truck driver arrived and before the vehicle was loaded on the truck, Plaintiff was taken to county jail. Plaintiff was booked for felony drug possession. When Plaintiff obtained the police report, he noticed that the drug test results did not come back until the following day after he was booked and bailed out. (Id. at 12.)

Plaintiff had conflicts with three court appointed attorneys. (Id.) Plaintiff requested a judge hear his case, but Defendant Sok consented to having his hearing before Defendant Bird. Plaintiff filed a case in federal court that was dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 13.) Defendant Sok refused Plaintiff's request to have his cases transferred to the Attorney General's Office for prosecution.

During a Marsden Hearing, Defendant Sok informed the court that he spoke with Plaintiff for one hour and forty five minutes reviewing the case, which he did not do. Plaintiff told the court he had not spoken to Defendant Sok before or after any preliminary hearing. Defendant Sok did not call any witnesses at the preliminary hearing. (Id. at 14.)

Plaintiff called Defendant Sok and asked him for a ride to his mental health evaluation. Defendant Sok never called him back. Plaintiff missed the mental health exam and Defendant Sanderson ordered him into custody without listening to Plaintiff's explanation. Plaintiff was released due to overcrowding in the jail and Judge Sanderson left him free. Judge Kapetan heard Plaintiff's Marsden motion and ordered Plaintiff back into custody. (Id. at 15.) After hearing that Plaintiff had previously been represented by Defendant Kapetan'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.