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.

Crook v. San Bernardino County Dep't of Child Support Servs.

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 11, 2014

JASPER CROOK, Plaintiff,
v.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, et al, Defendants

Jasper Crook, Plaintiff, Pro se, Norco, CA.

For State of California San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services for San Bernardino, Connie Brunn, Randall Dancer, Gabriel Mendez, Angela Calderon, Armando Perez, Defendants: Douglas C Smith, LEAD ATTORNEY, Smith Law Offices APC, Riverside, CA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) AND 41(b)

MARGARET A. NAGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On September 24, 2014, Jasper Crook (" plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Complaint"). Plaintiff named the following defendants: San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services (sued as " State of California San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services for San Bernardino"); Dana Nicole Thibedeaux; Connie Brunn; Randall Dancer; Gabriel Mendez; Angela Calderon; Ingrid Peach; Armando Perez; and Does 1 through 10.

On October 16, 2014, the County of Bernardino (" County"), Connie Brunn, Randall Dancer, Gabriel Mendez, Angela Calderon, and Armando Perez (collectively " County Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (" Motion"). On October 17, 2014, the Court vacated the hearing date on the Motion and set a briefing schedule. On October 28, 2014, plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. On November 10, 2014, the County Defendants filed a Reply.

The Motion is submitted and ready for decision.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff and defendant Dana Thibedeaux are the parents of a child. (Complaint at 3-6.) The other individual defendants all have some connection with the San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services (" DCSS"), although plaintiff does not describe their titles or responsibilities. (Id. at 3.) This action stems from DCSS's enforcement of plaintiff's child support obligations. The underlying facts, however, are murky.

Plaintiff complains that, in 1996, his driver's license was suspended for nonpayment of child support despite lack of evidence of paternity. (Complaint at 3-4.) He does not allege whether the suspension is ongoing. He further alleges that unnamed DCSS agents, working together with Thibedeaux, forced him to sign a contact under duress. The DCSS agents misrepresented the nature of the contract and failed to disclose critical provisions regarding visitation and means of payment. For instance, plaintiff never agreed to bank levies or credit liens as means of collecting child support payments. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff does not allege when the contract was signed, but complains that Thibedeaux breached it in some unspecified manner a week later, and DCSS refused to enforce it against her. (Id. at 4-5.) He also contends that DCSS fraudulently billed him for " months and years" when Thibedeaux did not have physical custody of the child. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff alleges that he notified defendants Perez and Peach that Thibedeaux was fraudulently collecting welfare payments under multiple identities, but they refused to act against her. (Complaint at 6.) DCSS also violated plaintiff's equal protection rights when Doe 2 appeared in court on behalf of Thibedeaux, but refused to represent plaintiff due to his gender. (Id.)

Plaintiff contends that the County Defendants have violated due process by searching his financial records and taking his property without a prior hearing. (Complaint at 6.) They have repeatedly seized funds from various sources to collect on what plaintiff contends is a fraudulent, unverified debt. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that DCSS has collected approximately $20, 000 from him to date. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff also complains that DCSS exposed his child to undue influences outside of his religious beliefs. (Complaint at 7.)

Plaintiff contends that defendants' invasion of his private effects and seizure of his money, as well as their " interference of [ sic ] religious practices with [ sic ] his child, " have caused him various injuries, including emotional distress, financial damage, loss of employment opportunities, defamation to his financial reputation, and collateral injuries to his family. (Complaint at 7-8.) He asserts claims against defendants for: (1) violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including deprivation of due process and equal protection; (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985(3) & 1986, 5 U.S.C. § § 702 & 706, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)& (c), 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, and 42 U.S.C. § 602; (3) discrimination (gender bias), coercion to enter a contract, undue influence (contract), misrepresentation of contract, breach of contract, failure to disclose vital parts of a contract, failure/refusal to perform obligated duties due to gender, fraud, negligence, violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act, deprivation of the right of rescission of a contract, extortion of payments, and fraudulent representation of jurisdiction/authority. (Complaint at 2.)

Plaintiff seeks: (1) an order under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 to compel " financial enforcement" on Thibedeaux; (2) removal of all negative credit reports that were based on reports ...


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.