Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Latronica v. Halfhill

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 4, 2015

MARTIN O. HALFHILL, et al., Defendants.



Plaintiff Melanie Chantell Latronica ("Latronica") filed her original complaint in this action on September 19, 2014, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court, in its Order of September 30, 2014, denied plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and dismissed her case with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 9.) As the Court outlined in that Order, the complaint stated no discernible basis for subject matter jurisdiction and was largely unintelligible as to the nature of any claim, the basis for that claim, and against whom the claim was stated. Latronica was given leave to amend.

Latronica thereafter paid the filing fee and filed her First Amended Complaint on October 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 18.) On November 20, 2014, Defendant City of Modesto filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 26.) On November 21, 2015, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause the claims in the First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1331 and 1332, which required her to file a written response no later than December 22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 27.)

Plaintiff has filed a number of documents since that date, including:

(1) Notice of Motion for Hearing Request for Order Judicial Notice/Expedited Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 29, filed December 10, 2014);

(2) Declaration Notice to Court Pertaining to Order September 29, 2014 Pertaining to Plaintiffs Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge and new Consent signed mailed with this Declaration (Dkt. No. 31, filed December 10, 2014);

(3) Request for Entry of Default (Dkt. No. 37, filed December 16, 2014);

(4) Motion for Entry of Default (Dkt. Nos. 37, filed December 16, 2014);

(5) Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 38, filed December 16, 2014;

(6) "Opposition to City of Modesto's Motion to dismiss case against Defendant Modesto et all (County Seal) Affidavit in Support Thereof" (Dkt. No. 41, filed December 22, 2014)[1];

(7) "Declaration Notice to Court: Informing about the poisons to name only a few there's more" (Dkt. No. 42, filed December 22, 2014);

(8) "Motion Declaration to Honorable Court in light of....[sic]" (Dkt. No. 43, filed January 2, 2015);

(9) Motion for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment (against all defendants) (Dkt. Nos. 46, and 47, filed January 20, 2015);

(10) "Notice Hearing/Injunction Requested for hearing 1/15/15" (Dkt. No. 50, filed January 27, 2015);

(11) a letter with attachments addressed to Honorable Claudia Wilken with the heading "Emergency Protective Order" (Dkt. No. 51, filed January 27, 2015); and

(12) Motion for issuance of subpoenas (Dkt. No. 52, filed January 30, 2015).

Latronica's First Amended Complaint remains essentially incomprehensible. She appears to be attempting to state claims against a number of private and public entity defendants, including the City of Modesto, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and others. She alleges Constitutional deprivations based upon alleged criminal activity against her and "the girls, " in the form of torture, slavery, forced injections, spraying with poisons and chemicals, and procedures involving "internal animation technology, " among other allegations. She alleges that her claims arise under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, as well as the California Victim's Bill of Rights Act, and 18 U.S.C. section 1595 regarding restitution to victims of human trafficking and forced labor.

Defendant City of Modesto seeks an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal is appropriate when a plaintiff fails to state a claim that has facial plausibility such that the court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Further, dismissal is proper when the complaint fails to set forth a "cognizable legal theory" that could entitle the plaintiff to relief. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008).

Here, the allegations against Defendant City of Modesto specifically are that the Modesto Police Department kidnapped her and sent her to a torture facility in Bakersfield, and engaged in "illegal activity" while she was in Los Banos and Merced. The allegations are incomprehensible to the point that the defendant cannot be expected to respond or to identify any defenses that may apply. Though abundant, the allegations are largely conclusory. More significantly, the allegations of the First Amended Complaint do not have facial plausibility.

As a consequence, the Motion of Defendant City of Modesto to Dismiss is GRANTED. Because Latronica was given an opportunity to amend already in this action, and made essentially identical allegations and claims, no leave to amend is granted. Defendant City of Modesto is DISMISSED.[2]

The Court also finds it appropriate to dismiss this action against the remaining defendants. A court may properly dismiss a complaint sua sponte where the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief under the statute urged. Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981). Although a court can make such an order even without providing plaintiff an opportunity to respond, here the Court has given Latronica the opportunity to amend her complaint and to show cause why the First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed. Neither opportunity has resulted in the filing of a comprehensible complaint.

Therefore, the Court Orders that this Action is DISMISSED as against all defendants. All pending motions and requests are terminated. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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