United States District Court, E.D. California
FOR PLAINTIFF TO: (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR (2)
NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT,
SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE
CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER (ECF NO. 1) THIRTY DAY
Charles Lake Davis, is proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on September 3, 2019 (ECF No. 1). The
Complaint is before the Court for screening. For the reasons
described below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
state a cognizable claim against Defendants.
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).
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.
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,
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000),
and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's 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 that pro se complaints
should continue to be liberally construed after
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
brings claims against the Hanford Police Department
(“Hanford PD”) and the Department of Adult Parole
Operations, Hanford, CA (“DAPO”). Plaintiff also
brought a prior civil action, filed on August 21, 2019 (the
“prior civil action”) against Defendant DAPO and
two other individuals. See Davis v. Mendoza, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01142 (E.D. Cal. 2019). At the time Plaintiff
filed the prior civil action, he was incarcerated in the
Kings County Jail.
alleges that after he filed the prior civil action, he was
released from custody, and that five days after being
released, Defendants (DAPO and the Hanford PD) retaliated
against him by falsely arresting him for trespass and
resisting arrest. Plaintiff appears to allege that the
property on which he is charged with trespassing is the
property that bears his address of record and that he thus
could not have been trespassing on the property; and that the
officer who arrested Plaintiff was behind him, and because
Plaintiff cannot hear and can only lip read, he could not
have heard or understood the officer's commands or read
the officer's lips and thus could not have been resisting
arrest. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered abrasions and
bruises during the incident, that he is very afraid, that he
suffers from disabilities under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and is under chronic
care, and that he is a mental health patient who suffers from
post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
Plaintiff also alleges that he has initiated an internal
investigation into the circumstances surrounding his arrest.
Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive
rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'”
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989)
(quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3
(1979)); see also Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights
Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los
Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. ...