United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC.
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Screening Requirement and Standard
Keenan Wilkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's
complaint, filed on December 12, 2016, is currently before
the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States
Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The
sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
Plaintiff names the following defendants in their individual
and official capacities: (1) Stanislaus County; (2) Rebecca
J. Fleming, Clerk/Executive Officer; (3) Angela Segundo,
Deputy Clerk; (4) Gloria Green, Deputy Clerk; (5) Jared D.
Beeson, Research Attorney; (6) G. James, Deputy Clerk; (7)
Michelle Salcido, Deputy Clerk; (8) Julie C. Dodge, Family
asserts that multiple Stanislaus County officials acted or
conspired to deny and interfere with his rights to Equal
Protection, Due Process and Access to Courts in the
Stanislaus County family law action titled Wilkins v.
Wilkins, No. 686620. Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to
serve and file motions and pleadings, but the clerks
allegedly failed in their duty to file the submissions.
Plaintiff contends that he was prejudiced and injured in the
action, which threated his parental, custody, property and
alleges that he was served with “the action, ”
which the Court construes as the family law action titled
Wilkins v. Wilkins, No. 686620. On February 4, 2013,
Plaintiff served a motion for appointment of counsel.
Thereafter, on April 22, May 13, May 20 and May 27, 2013,
Plaintiff served notice, letters and objections that he had
not received any ruling on his motion for counsel. Plaintiff
requested status, but his correspondence was ignored.
Plaintiff subsequently learned in June 2013 from Defendant
Dodge that the court issued an order on February 8, 2013
denying counsel. The order also allowed Plaintiff to appear
at hearings by phone after he timely files a response.
Plaintiff alleges that the judge's clerk, Defendant
James, never sent Plaintiff this order. Stanislaus County
Research Attorney, Defendant Beeson, filed an informal
response to Plaintiff's mandate petition admitting the
order was never served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that he
was prejudiced with a default judgment on April 11, 2013.
March 11, 2013, Plaintiff received a response and documents
from Defendant Segundo. Plaintiff completed the forms and
returned them to Defendant Segundo with a notice/letter. The
response was not filed, and was returned to Plaintiff with no
reason or explanation on March 27, 2013. Plaintiff
resubmitted the documents to the Court on March 28, 2013,
with a notice to Defendant Segundo regarding Plaintiff's
confusion. The documents were not filed, and on April 11,
2013, a default judgment was granted against him. Plaintiff
alleges that default was entered by Defendant Salcido, but he
was not served and had to seek relief from the default
further alleges that his correspondence apparently was
forwarded to Defendant Dodge, the Stanislaus County Family
Law Facilitator. On April 30, 2013, Defendant Dodge wrote
Plaintiff a letter informing Plaintiff that counsel could not
be provided in a family law case. Defendant Dodge also
reported that she had reviewed all of Plaintiff's prior
correspondence, but Plaintiff alleges that she failed to
provide any information about what Plaintiff needed to do and
failed to take any action as the family law facilitator to
26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a writ of mandate in the Court of
Appeal. The appellate court reportedly ordered an informal
response. Defendant Beeson filed an informal response dated
July 24, 2013. Defendant Beeson allegedly informed the court
that Plaintiff's action did not warrant appointment of
counsel because it was not a bona fide civil action
threatening his interests. Plaintiff asserts, however, that
he lost custody, parental, visitation, property, finances and
assets in the judgment. The appellate court denied the
petition on July 31, 2013.
filed a request for relief from default on June 19, 2013,
which was granted. Plaintiff then began to serve numerous
motions that were not filed by the family law clerk,
Defendant James. One of the ...