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.

Rodriguez v. Penner

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 31, 2017

ROBERT J. RODRIGUEZ Plaintiff,
v.
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 DEADLINE.

         I.

         TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

         Plaintiff 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.)

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The 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).

         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)). 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 Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners 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.

         II.

         COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff 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.)[1] 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         III.

         DISCUSSION

         A. ...


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.