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.

Manter v. Fresno Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 21, 2019

MICHAEL J. MANTER, Plaintiff,
v.
FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al, Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NOS. 1, 5, 6) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS

         Plaintiff, Michael J. Manter, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing of a Complaint alleging claims against the Fresno Police Department and the City Hall of Fresno. (ECF No. 1.) On October 15, 2019, the Court entered a screening order finding that the Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id.) The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service of the screening order to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint, subject to findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the Complaint could result in the dismissal of this case. (Id. at 12-13.)

         The thirty-day period has expired and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a notice that he wishes to stand on the Complaint. However, on November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court. (ECF No. 6.) This letter does not explicitly state that Plaintiff wishes to stand on the Complaint or file an amended complaint.[1] Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court interprets Plaintiffs letter to include a notice to the Court that Plaintiff wishes to stand on the Complaint.

         For the reasons described below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiffs failure to state a claim. Plaintiff may file objections to these findings and recommendations within twenty-one days from the date of service of this order.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in any case in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must conduct a review of the complaint to determine whether it "state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted," is "frivolous or malicious," or "seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. An action is frivolous if it is "of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact" and malicious if it was filed with the "intention or desire to harm another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

         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)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

         In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnickv. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiffs favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding thatpro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

         II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

         The Complaint alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, to freedom of speech, and to petition the government for redress of his grievances; have violated Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the United States Code; have denied Plaintiff his rights under the Sixth Amendment; and have denied Plaintiff his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by exhibiting bias toward Plaintiff on account of race and religion. (ECF No. 1 at 8.)

         As far as factual allegations, in the section of the Complaint titled "Statement of Claim," Plaintiff alleges:

On July 23rd of 2019, 2.600 Fresno Street Room 1030, City of Fresno, Fresno, CA 93721-3612.1 was denied the Right to bring a Partition of Grievance of Redress, First Amendment Right. Obstruction of Justice by Fresno PD. They destroyed evidence July 9th, 2019, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 1030, City of Fresno, Fresno, CA 93721-3612 I was denied my Right to bring Partition of Grievance of Redress, First Amendment Right. The claims filed those days involved Sexual Assault, Assault and Battery, Harassment and Sexual Harassment and Torture for the last 5 years. Hate crimes, abridging my Freedom of Speech, making fun of me for talking about Video Games and stopping me from defending my life, from three Mexicans. Making fun of me for being Christian and making a cure for death. And telling me that being a Christian was like being a Vampire.

(ECF No.1at10.)[2]

         In the section of the Complaint titled "Amount in Controversy," Plaintiff alleges: "The harassment has been going on since Keith Foster pointed his gun at me for reporting an officer who threatened to kill me for being a White Boy, estimated around 5 years ago." (ECF No. 1 at 9. Finally, in the section of the complaint titled "Relief," Plaintiff alleges the following:

On the 4th of August 2019 I have a picture of an officer with an assault rifle harassing me for talking about Video Games, yelling at me, "Whats Your Problem." I was standing on my Mother's Property and I told him, "I don't Know and Fm bringing a Federal Case for cops harassing and torturing me for talking about Video Games". And I said, "Did you know that cops kill kids?" and he put his hand up in my face and said, "this is where the ...

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.