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.

Gonzales v. Rutledge

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 29, 2017

GERARDO GONZALES, Plaintiff,
v.
BILL RUTLEDGE, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzales (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action on March 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and required him to pay the filing fee in full for this action. (ECF No. 8.) On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff paid the filing fee.

         On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court entitled “Legal Letter for the Court to Take Judicial Notice; Request for Immediate Action by this Court due to Medical and Psychological Harm to Plaintiff; Order for Protection and Legal Questions.” (ECF No. 9.)

         Plaintiff's complaint is currently before the Court for screening.

         Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (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).

         Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Allegations in Complaint

         Plaintiff brings this action against more than fifty defendants, including employees of the Kern County Human Services Department, the Kern County District Attorney's Office, the Kern County Sheriff's Department, the Kern County Superior Court, and the various field offices of the FBI located in Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. (ECF No. 1 at pp. 2-3.)

         Plaintiff forwards 12 separate claims for violation of his constitutional rights, all of which stem from an apparent investigation into allegations of child molestation against him and a subsequent criminal action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to file false allegations of child molestation against him, resulting in, among other things, false arrests, false imprisonment and a no contest plea in violation of his constitutional rights.

         In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 1984, Cory Taylor, an employee of Kern County Human Services, formed a conspiracy with Janet F. Hastings, Brooke A. Hastings and Bob Hastings to file false allegations of child molestation against him. Plaintiff asserts that he entitled to declaratory stating that he is innocent of any and all charges filed by these parties. (ECF No. 1 at p. 10.) Plaintiff further alleges that he suffered defamatory damage, loss of work/income, and emotional distress. He also lost him home and belongings and spent 2 ½ years in Kern County Jail due to defendants actions. (Id.)

         In his second claim, Plaintiff alleges that Cory Taylor, Bill Rutledge, W.S. Wahl and other Kern County Employees conspired to arrest him without any investigation or warrants. Plaintiff contends that the sole purpose was to remove Melissa Gonzales and Tyson ...


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.