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.

Wiley v. Goodman

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 23, 2019

ANTHONY WILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT GOODMAN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Anthony Wiley asserts Robert Goodman, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the Kern County Superior Court are liable for violations of his civil rights to equal protection and due process, “crimes against the disabled, ” judicial corruption, and judicial misconduct. However, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support his claims for violations of his civil rights, and it appears the remainder are barred under the doctrines of judicial immunity and Rooker-Feldman. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

         I. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis

         The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees when an individual “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application and finds he satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

         II. Screening Requirement

         When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         A plaintiff's claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). In other words, a complaint is frivolous where the litigant sets “not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

         III. Pleading Standards

         General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement affirming the court's jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

         A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the complaint is to inform the defendant of the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.'

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

         IV. Allegations

         Plaintiff alleges that in 2013, he “was arrested and held to answer [for] something already litigated.” (Doc. 1 at 8) He asserts he is arrested “[e]very 4 years, ” for a total of three times in twelve years, and he was unlawfully detained “3 times for the same charge.” (Id. at 8, 9) According to Plaintiff, the “courts failed due process” and a judge in the family law division “harmed Plaintiff” using domestic violence orders. (Id. at 8) He contends the court is corrupt and made him homeless “as a result of the court moving forward on documents in violation of [the] 1974 Privacy Act.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges a $100, 000 lien was placed on his home, which result in a loss of business. (Id. at 9) Finally, Plaintiff contends that at an unidentified time, he was the “victim of [a] violent hate crime, ” which resulted in bodily injury.

         V. Discussion and Analysis

         Based upon the foregoing facts, Plaintiff contends the defendants are liable for violations of “equal protection under the law, crimes against the disabled, failure of due process, judicial corruption, [and] judicial misconduct.” (Doc. 1 at 4)

         A. Eleventh ...


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.