United States District Court, S.D. California
C. JOE SCHROEDER, Plaintiff,
SDSU POLICE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY POLICE, LAVIN CENTER, BERNIE SCHROEDER, CYRUS MATASHORI, and DOES, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 6)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff C. Joe Schroeder's Motion
to Amend Original Complaint. (“Mot. to Amend, ”
ECF No. 6.) The Court previously stated that Plaintiff was
allowed to submit an amended complaint without so moving the
Court, (ECF No. 4), so the Court construes this filing as
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, the Court
sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff's FAC without
Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &
Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds
“frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a
district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that
fails to state a claim”).
amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates
that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP
provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to
dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Navarette v.
Pioneer Med. Ctr., No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL
139925, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013).
complaints 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555
(2007)). “[D]etermining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing
court to draw on its experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64 (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556).
there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
assume their veracity, and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]hen determining
whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as
true all allegations of material fact and must construe those
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000);
see also Andrews v. King, 393 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not.” Hoagland v. Astrue, No.
1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28,
2012) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot
accept legal conclusions set forth in a complaint if the
plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts.
Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
FAC appears to be a chronicling of various alleged
injustices. For these wrongs Plaintiff seeks over $225, 000
for (1) delayed MBA degree completion, (2) character attacks,
slander, and libel, and (3) assault and battery. (FAC at
Plaintiff fails to plead a plausible claim for relief under
Plaintiff seeks damages for “delayed MBA degree
completion.” (Id.) But, just as the Court
previously found, Plaintiff again fails to provide any
authority supporting this cause of action, and more
fundamentally fails to plausibly demonstrate that he is in
fact a San Diego State University (“SDSU”)
student entitled to take courses on campus.Additionally,
Plaintiff claims that his Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (“FAFSA”) was somehow hacked.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that after he tried to finish
his saved application, the website said “social
security number & name don't match, ” and,
because that had never been the case before, “[t]hat
means the application was hacked in one way or
another.” (FAC 2.) This leap in logic is unsupported by
any factual allegations, and Plaintiff provides no federal or
state authority to support this cause of action.
Plaintiff generally seeks relief for alleged character
attacks, slander, and libel. (Id. at 7.)
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “since police
contact, the rumor network of police has been in full affect
[sic] attempting to use negative word of mouth to discredit
Plaintiff & to harm social lives of Plaintiff &
others.” (Id.) This is not enough. See,
e.g., N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964). Plaintiff fails to cite any statement actionable as
slander or libel.
Plaintiff seeks relief for alleged incidents of assault
and/or battery. (FAC 7.) These charges are presumably based
on the following allegations. A police officer allegedly
“off camera [and] after assault . . . grabbed
[Plaintiff's] tablet out of [his] hand [and] pushed
Plaintiff onto [the] stairs.” (Id. at 4.) On
another occasion, a police officer “tackled,