United States District Court, C.D. California
ROBERT F. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
DARIELLE MASON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge
Robert F. Holloway (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil
rights complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against
defendants Darielle Mason, Virginia Angulo, and Lorrayne
Green (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF Docket
No. (“Dkt.”) 1. As discussed below, the Court
dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.
ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT
January 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Defendants asserting his “civil rights have been
violated without cause, without process and without
proof.” Dkt. 1, Compl. at 1-3. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff challenges actions taken in relation to a Child
Support Enforcement Action, BZ177598, in which he is named as
the obligor. Id. at 1-7; see also id. at
10, Ex. A, Income Withholding for Support Order
(“IWO”); id. at 11, Ex. C, Amended IWO.
While the Complaint acknowledges “numerous
letters” stating Plaintiff owes amounts for child
support, Plaintiff asserts there is no “proof of the
underlying order” and “[n]o such order
exists.” Id. at 3.
alleges on February 10, 2016, a County of Los Angeles Child
Support Services Division (“CSSD”) officer,
defendant Angulo, sent a copy of the IWO to Plaintiff's
employer. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff claims his income
was withheld pursuant to the IWO. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff further alleges he attempted to reach defendant
Angulo “to request [the] underlying order” and
also sent his employer a cease and desist letter in an
attempt to prevent the income withholding. Id.
also alleges he spoke with defendant Mason, a child support
representative, who “threatened the suspension of [his]
license,  which is [Plaintiff's] sole means of
earning wages.” Id.
also alleges CSSD officer, defendant Green, fraudulently
placed a lien on Plaintiff's workers compensation case.
Id. at 2-3; see also id. at 9, Ex. D.
on these allegations, Plaintiff claims violations of his
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments right to freedom from
unreasonable search and seizures because Defendants conspired
to deprive Plaintiff “of property under the color of
law”; violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments due process rights because Defendants did
“not provid[e] proof of [an] underlying order”;
and violation of the Fourth Amendment because Defendants
“deprive[d] Plaintiff of property without obtaining a
proper writ/tort.” Id. at 4-6.
seeks compensatory damages, dismissal of “Case
#BZ177598, ” and an order for “[a]ll liens
removed and property returned.” Id. at 7.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must screen the Complaint and is required to dismiss the case
at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for
screening purposes, the Court applies the same pleading
standard as it would when evaluating a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
In addition, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 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).
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim
“where there is no cognizable legal theory or an
absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable
legal theory.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990,
996 (9th Cir. 2007). In considering whether a complaint
states a claim, a court must accept as true all of the
material factual allegations in it. Hamilton v.
Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). However,
the court need not accept as true “allegations that are
merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec.
Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Although a
complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, it
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004
(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). A claim is
facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference ...