United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE RE: DKT. NO. 24
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 2, 2019, this Court issued an order addressing
various questions posed by Plaintiff and ordering Plaintiff
to amend her complaint by November 1, 2019.
Dkt. 19. As the Court instructed Plaintiff, the Court's
ability to provide legal advice or aid to Plaintiff is
limited. The Court urged Plaintiff to bring her letter and
the Court's prior orders to Mr. Kevin Knestrick at the
Federal Pro Se Program so that he could help Plaintiff with
submitted an amended complaint on October 28, 2019.
See Dkt. 24 (“Amended Compl.”). The
amended complaint still fails to state a plausible claim for
relief. See Order Granting IFP Application;
Screening Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“Judge
Cousins' Order”) at 1, Dkt. 8. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice pursuant to this Court's October 2,
2019 order. Dkt. 19. The Clerk is instructed to close the
SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915
complaint submitted by a person proceeding in forma
pauperis is subject to mandatory and sua sponte
review and dismissal by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). The Complaint may be dismissed if it is
frivolous, malicious, 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. §
1215(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th
Rule 8(a), a pleading must include (1) a short and plain
statement of the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for relief sought.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3). The complaint need not allege
detailed factual allegations, but it must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is
facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Allegations in the Complaint
like Plaintiff's initial complaint, the Amended Complaint
is “fairly difficult to comprehend.” Judge
Cousins' Order at 2. Unlike the original complaint, the
Amended Complaint has no cover sheet listing causes of
action. Cf. Amended Complaint (taking the form of
one long letter). Like the first complaint, the Amended
Complaint contains “many attachments, ” mostly
letters and other documents sent between Plaintiff and
various governmental entities including correspondence with
this Court. Amended Complaint at 3-12. The Amended Complaint
is addressed only to “City of San Jose Mayor Sam
Lacardo, ” although it also mentions “Alan
Lipton.” Id. at 1. The Court thus construes
the causes of action as only applying to Mayor Sam Liccardo
and San Jose City Attorney Alan Lipton.
original complaint indicated that Plaintiff was cited $35,
600.00 by the City of San Jose for code enforcement
violations relating to an allegedly unpermitted sunroom on
her house in San Jose. See Dkt. 1 at 20. Now,
however, the Amended Complaint seeks only “punitive
damages due to [her] of $1000, 000” and no mention of
the original citation amount can be located. See
generally Amended Complaint. Plaintiff indicates that
the lawsuit is “no longer about a 50 year old room
addition that was permitted and signed off . . . . But for
damages due to me.” Id. at 1. She insinuates
that the City of San Jose is pursuing the citation against
her because it needs revenue. Id. She also states
that she is being singled out, discriminated against, and her
civil rights are being violated because no other homes have
been cited. Id.
Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff refers to her civil rights, the Court considers her
allegations as a possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Id. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff
must allege (1) conduct committed by a person acting under
color of state law; and (2) deprivation of her rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145
F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998). To plead a Section 1983
claim against a supervisor, like Mayor Liccardo or City
Attorney Lipton, a plaintiff must allege a causal link
between the supervisor and the constitutional violation
allegedly enacted by his employees. Fayle v.
Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979).
Amended Complaint alleges only that her civil rights were
violated and that she was discriminated against. The Court,
however, still “is unable to understand what
[c]onstitutional rights the defendants deprived her of,
” see Judge Cousins' Order at 4, because the
grounds for her allegation that she was “single[d]
out” are unclear. It is also unclear whether
“singling out” even constitutes a constitutional
violation as the only facts alleged are that no other home
was cited. Bare conclusory statements like as “I have
been singled out, discrimination, and violating my civil
rights” are entitled to little deference.”
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[A] court must
accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Further,
Plaintiff never connects ...