Rivers v. Wright

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (DOC. NO. 7)

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Shermarrie Rivers ("Plaintiff) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (Doc. No. 1.)

         On October 8, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and granted her leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was warned expressly that if she failed to comply with the Court's order, then the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. (Id. at 9.) More than thirty (30) days have passed and no amended complaint has been filed.

         II. Failure to State a Claim

         A. Screening Requirement

         The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiffs 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).

         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. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiffs 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).

         To survive screening, Plaintiffs 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         B. Plaintiffs Allegations

         Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Brad Hardie of Regency Property; and (2) Donecia Wright, CPS Supervisor. In her form complaint, Plaintiff asserts a failure to accommodate her disability, alleging she has ADHD and no schooling. Plaintiff states the facts of her case as follows: "She Removed my son with out p[r]oof." (Doc. No. 1 at 5.)

         In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff attaches numerous exhibits to her complaint. These exhibits include charts and documents regarding Child Protective Custody and the Juvenile Dependency Court Process, information and forms regarding Gabelcrest Transitional Recovery Program for Women and Their Children, and a website printout for Regency Property Management and Brad Hardie.

         Plaintiff also includes several handwritten pages. In these pages, Plaintiff alleges that she had a baby boy named Damar Ricks in 2011. Plaintiff was positive for cocaine. Her son was two weeks old when she went to Spirit of Woman and Plaintiff had an open CPS case. At four months, Plaintiffs mother passed away while she was in the program. CPS closed her case and she and her son were free to go. Plaintiff moved to First and Olive, where she met Brad Hardie. At that time, her son was six months old. Plaintiff went to Madera, California, and got locked up for two weeks for selling her body. When she returned to Fresno, Brad Hardie had removed all of the things from her home without notice.

         On October 2013, a court case was opened, and Plaintiff went back to Spirit of Woman. CPS placed her son with her. Plaintiff completed both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Plaintiffs case worker also was her son's father's case worker when he was in the system. Plaintiff contends that Brad Hardie is law enforcement. She claims discrimination and violation of her parental rights. She asserts that she has been looking for help since having an open CPS case.

         Plaintiff further alleges that Brad Hardie told the Spirit of Woman director, Mrs. Riley, that he was going to help the program. On March 20, 2019, Spirit of Woman was closed down. On June 16, 2019, Plaintiff contacted Mrs. ...