United States District Court, E.D. California
ROBERT J. RODRIGUEZ Plaintiff,
DON PENNER, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF Nos. 1, 7) TWENTY-ONE DAY
Robert Rodriguez, a pretrial detainee, is appearing pro se
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint in this
action on February 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On March 27, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 7.) On March 30, 2017,
the Court granted Plaintiff's March 29, 2017 application
to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that “fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
brings this action against District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp,
Deputy District Attorney Liz Owen, and Judge Don Penner,
alleging that on January 26, 2017, he accepted a true bill
issued against him by placing his acceptance of the offer on
the face of the bill. (Compl.at 3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
alleges that between October 23, 2016, and October 26, 2016,
he was presented with a complaint filed by the District
Attorney's Office against him and that he provided a
lawful contention to count one and count one was dismissed.
(Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff contends that he presented
the accepted complaint to the judge so that his acceptance
could be expressed on the record by the judge and the judge
could offer the accepted complaint to “the
people.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff states that
“the people” rejected the offer. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he then requested the complaint be
returned, but the judge refused to return it. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that he expressed to the court and
“the people” that he accepted their
“dishonor.” (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff
alleges that by rule, rejection of payment shall free all
obligation of the debtor. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also
alleges that his acceptance was dishonored by and through the
agents of the District Attorney's Office and that the
District Attorney's Office is now acting in dishonor.
(Id. at 5.)
alleges that he has suffered an injury because he continues
to be unlawfully detained. (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff
requests temporary injunctive relief until the conclusion of
the case; $5, 000, 000 from each Defendant for a total of
$15, 000, 000; and court fees. (Id. at 6.)