United States District Court, E.D. California
RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, scheduled for hearing on June 21, 2017. ECF No. 16.
In response to defendant's motion, plaintiff filed a
Statement of Non-Opposition. ECF No. 17. Having considered
the unopposed arguments submitted by defendant, the court
VACATES the June 21, 2017 hearing and recommends that
defendant's motion be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED
with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of
proceeding pro se, filed his complaint on December 18, 2016.
ECF No. 1. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that in 2014,
he noticed that he was being followed and stalked by a woman
he had gone to high school with. Id. at 2. In
January and February of 2015, plaintiff began spending time
on Alhambra Boulevard. Id. Plaintiff alleges the
woman continued to stalk him. Id. On March 23, 2015,
plaintiff asserts that he was taking shelter under boxes when
defendant, a Sacramento Police Officer, tore the boxes off of
him and assaulted him, ultimately breaking his arm.
Id. at 3.
27, 2015, plaintiff states that he submitted a Sacramento
County Sheriff's Department Citizen Complaint Form about
the March 23rd incident. Id. at 5. On Monday, June
1, 2015, plaintiff received a phone call from the Sacramento
County Sheriff's Department Internal Affairs Division.
Id. Plaintiff had an interview with Internal Affairs
on June 3, 2015. Id. After some negotiations,
plaintiff states that he felt pressured to agree to accept
$2, 000 and payment of current and future medical expenses to
settle his claims. Id. at 6. Plaintiff asserts that
he was handed a document titled “Release of all
Claims” and was instructed to read and understand it
before signing. Id. The deputy stated that the form
meant plaintiff was releasing all claims against the
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. Id.
Plaintiff, “naïve of the government claims
process, ” signed the document. Id. Plaintiff
received payment the same day. Id. at 7.
alleges that his high school classmate continues to stalk
him, “following and watching in the company of Sheriff
unmarked vehicles[.]” Id. at 8. Plaintiff
followed up several times with the Department of Internal
Affairs to check on the status of his case, and was told by
the adjuster that there would be no further compensation.
Id. Around September of 2015, plaintiff alleges he
began experiencing a “mockery by individuals that
plaintiff comes into contact with, throughout the
city.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff asserts that the
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department publicized
information about him, potentially in a conspiracy.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that when he utilized the
Sacramento Central Library computers, defendant sat next to
him and made a gesture with his right arm, and showed
plaintiff a shiny tooth. Id. at 10. Plaintiff states
that he followed up with Risk Management again in December of
2015 regarding the status of his claim, and was told that the
claim had already been settled. Id. at 11. Plaintiff
again saw defendant, accompanied by the woman who is stalking
presents several claims that are apparently based on the
March 23, 2015 incident between plaintiff and defendant.
These claims include Assault (First Cause of Action),
Unlawful Arrest (Third Cause of Action), Excessive Force
(Fourth Cause of Action), Battery (Fifth Cause of Action),
and False Imprisonment (Sixth Cause of Action). Plaintiff
makes two other claims related to the alleged publication of
information about him, which he alleges resulted in
widespread mockery. These claims include Defamation (Seventh
Cause of Action), and Slander (Second Cause of Action). On
May 15, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion.
ECF No. 17.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570, (2007)). In a plausible claim, “the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the conduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at
1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545); see also
Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962,
969 (9th Cir.2009) (“In sum, for a complaint to survive
a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual
content, ' and reasonable inferences from that content,
must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the
plaintiff to relief.”) (citing Iqbal at 1949).
The Court must accept plaintiffs' factual allegations as
true, but is not required to accept plaintiff's legal
conclusions as true. Id. at 1949-150. Courts are not
required to accept as true legal conclusions that are framed
as factual allegations. Iqbal, at 1950 (citation
omitted). Complaints by plaintiffs proceeding pro se are
construed liberally when being evaluated under
Iqbal, with the plaintiff afforded the benefit of
any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Plaintiff's Claims Related to the March 23, 2015
Incident Were Already Settled and Released
claims related to the March 23, 2015 incident with defendant
should be dismissed because plaintiff previously settled and
released all claims against defendant.
claims related to the March 23, 2015 incident include his
claims for Assault (First Cause of Action), Unlawful Arrest
(Third Cause of Action), Excessive Force (Fourth Cause of
Action), Battery (Fifth ...