United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
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.)
complaint is currently before the Court for screening.
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).
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).
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
Allegations in Complaint
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
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.
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.)
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 ...