United States District Court, N.D. California
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court issued an order in this case on December 2, 2016.
See Order (dkt. 18). It appears, however, that the
order was not served on Plaintiffs. The Court therefore
issues this amended order DISMISSING Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint (“FAC”) with leave to amend
within 30 days from the issuance of this amended order.
Janice Mendenhall and Mark Cato, proceeding pro se, bring
this action against Diana Christensen, Ana Oseguda, Ivan
Morales, and Joseph Quartell. Plaintiffs have been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See IFP Order
(dkt. 6). Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 1915, the Court
dismissed the original complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which, for the reasons to follow, is DISMISSED with
leave to amend.
nature of Plaintiffs' action is unclear. As before, the
FAC is entitled: “Complaint for Civil Rights Violation
of Decisions of Commissioner of Social Services Appeals Unit
of San Francisco, California” and appears to complain
about the denial of state-subsidized public benefits for
families like CalWorks and food stamps. See FAC
(dkt. 17) at 1-5. The Plaintiff's allege a
“deprivation of our [First] Amendment Right” to
petition “for a governmental redress of grievances,
” which they take to mean a right to “make an
official complaint to any government body without the fear of
that body arresting you or sanctioning you in any way.”
FAC at 2. They also allege a deprivation of their Seventh
Amendment rights, which they maintain guards against the
“establishment of arbitrary courts of justice, where
the decision of the judges is subject to the whims and
control of the government. Id. They then make the
following allegations against each of the four named
defendants - all of which they assert violated their civil
Allegations Against Defendant Diana Christensen
refused to release “[i]information [r]elated to
eligibility” for state benefits and hung up on
Plaintiffs after telling them “I am not supposed to
talk to you, if you want to get your money and see your case
you must take us to court!” Id. She also made
“numer[o]us error” and “intentionally typed
[them] into the system.” Id.
Allegations Against Defendant Ana Oseguda
“collaborated” with Christensen in not releasing
eligibility information and “stopping access” to
their state case. Id. She also participated in
“misleading” them during state court proceedings
by “stating that these our [sic] Judges when they are
retired attorneys for the County.” Id. at 2-3.
Finally, she “continue[s] to harass” their
family. Id. at 3.
Allegations Against Defendant Ivan Morales
“slander[ed] [Plaintiffs'] family name within the
department of Human Services by label[ing] [their] case a
hard case and putting out a statement that Mr. Cato was
running from the law without any proof.” Id.
He also “abuse[d] his power by doing whatever he
wanted” with Plaintiffs' case in
“retaliation” for an undisclosed exercise of
First Amendment rights. Id. He did not provide
adequate notice or explanation about why their request for
retroactive public assistance was denied. Id. These
actions, Plaintiffs allege, also violated Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act along with various state laws, which they
take to not only prohibit discrimination but also require
that people “be treated with courtesy, consideration,
and respect.” Id.
Allegations Against Defendant Joseph Quartell
a state collection agent, “incorrectly collected
funds” from Plaintiffs “without sending an
adequate notice to the family.” Id. at 4.
Failure to correct these alleged errors caused Plaintiffs
“pain and suffering.” Id.