United States District Court, E.D. California
AKHEEM D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
PATRICK JURDON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
NO. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Akheem D. Williams proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in
this complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His
complaint is before the Court for screening.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an
initial review of the complaint to determine if it states a
cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised
claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, "
"fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, " or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated and
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty.,
811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
complains of acts that occurred during his encounters with
law enforcement officers in Hanford, California. He names the
following police officers as defendants: (1) Patrick Jurdon,
(2) Lerry Leeds, (3) Jonathan Rivera, (4) Steven Sitter, (5)
Adams, and (6) Martinez.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
February 5, 2017, Plaintiff had an encounter with Defendants
Sitter, Adams, and Martinez. Although the pleading is
somewhat unclear, it appears that Defendant Sitter claimed to
have seen Plaintiff driving on Holt Avenue, then stopped
Plaintiff at Plaintiff's home on the pretext of inquiring
about a hit-and-run accident. Sitter claimed that a witness
reported seeing Plaintiff and his car involved in the
accident. However, there was no hit-and-run witness; this
story was used to “strong arm” Plaintiff and to
frame him. Sitter could not have seen Plaintiff driving
because Plaintiff was at home. (It was Super Bowl Sunday).
Plaintiff was racially profiled, subjected to an unlawful
search and seizure, and falsely arrested on DUI charges by
Sitter, Martinez, and Adams, and his vehicle was impounded.
This conduct violated Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights and also constitutes intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
February 21, 2017, officers were called to Holt Street on
allegations by a neighbor of Plaintiff that Plaintiff had
engaged in animal cruelty. Plaintiff was bitten by a pet dog
and put the dog over his fence to protect himself and school
children who might be passing by. Plaintiff explained these
circumstances to Defendant Jurdon. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was
arrested. Officers Jurdon, Rivera, and Leeds falsely claimed
that the dog was injured, his legs were “missed [sic]
up, ” and he almost drowned. There was however no water
behind Plaintiff's house on that date. The police were
wearing body cameras but did not turn them on when they
examined the dog. ...