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.

Banuelos v. Gabler

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 21, 2018

ROBERT BANUELOS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOY C. GABLER, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)

         Robert Banuelos (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint filed on May 17, 2018.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the court determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to screen the plaintiff's complaint in this action to determine if it “i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used 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). 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)).

         In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff brings this action against Joy C. Gabler the Superintendent over Hanford Elementary School and Priscilla Collins who works for the State Parole Board. (Compl. 3, [1] ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Roosevelt School and Priscilla Collins alleging that they used organized crimes. (Compl. 7.) In order to state a claim, Plaintiff must include a short, plain statement of the facts to show that he is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although Plaintiff's complaint is to be liberally construed, he must present sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of any factual allegations and fails to state a claim against any named defendant.

         Pursuant to 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure this deficiency. The Court provides the following legal standards which would apply to Plaintiff's claims.

         A. Section 1983

         Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff is required to show that (1) each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long, 442 F.3d at 1185.

         There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, and therefore, each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff's federal rights.

         B. First Amendment Right to Petition the Government

         Plaintiff alleges violation of his right to petition the government under the First Amendment. One of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment is “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. The right to petition provides citizens with the ability “to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives.” Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 388 (2011). “[T]he right to petition extends to all departments of the Government[.]” BE & K Const. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 536 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) (quoting Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136 (1961)). However, the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to respond to the petitions raised by individual citizens, guarantee that citizens' speech will be heard, or require that every petition for redress of grievances will be successful. Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 465 (1979); DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000).

         C. ...


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.