United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC.
1)
SHEILA
K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
November 8, 2019, Plaintiff Lisa Stock, proceeding pro
se, filed a civil complaint against Defendants
Stanislaus County; Stanislaus County Community Services
Agency; Stanislaus County Behavioral Health & Recovery
Services; Kathryn Harwell, “Director, ” in her
individual and official capacities; Laura Rodriguez,
“Social Worker IV, ” in her individual and
official capacities; Kimberly Rodriguez, “Social Worker
V, ” in her individual and official capacities; Marina
Wilbur, “Social Worker II, ” in her individual
and official capacities; Phillip Ballasch, “SUD
Counselor, ” in his individual and official capacities;
Melissa Maddox, “Social Worker, ” in her
individual and official capacities; and “DOES 9 thru
100.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff purports to allege causes of
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her due
process rights, namely, violation of her “right to
familial association, ” violation of her right to be
“free from acts of dishonesty in juvenile court
proceedings, ” “perjury, ”
“fabrication of evidence, ” and
“suppression of exculpatory evidence, ” and for
state law claims of “slander” and
“libel.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks
general and punitive damages of $750, 000 for “loss of
companionship, depression, anxiety, ” and “time
with [her] daughter [she] will never get back.”
(Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff's
complaint is now before the Court for screening. The Court
finds Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim, but may be
able to correct the deficiencies in her pleading. Thus,
Plaintiff is provided the pleading and legal standards for
her claims and is granted leave to file an amended complaint.
A.
Screening Requirement and Standard
In
cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case, and
shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines
that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or
appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails
to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent
that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by
amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2000) (en banc).
The
Court's screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) is governed by the following standards. A
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to
state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal
theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal
theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a
minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is
sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what
plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they
rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of the
Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKee ver v.
Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
B.
Pleading Requirements
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 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)). In determining
whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be
granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th
Cir. 1989). Moreover, since plaintiff is appearing pro
se, the Court must construe the allegations of the
Complaint liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of
any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police
Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However,
“the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a
plaintiff's factual allegations.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A]
liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982)).
Further,
“a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to
relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations
omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.' 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.”) (internal citations omitted).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff
alleges that on November 9, 2017, at approximately 12:00
a.m., Defendant Laura Rodriguez “dumped” her
teenage daughter Lillian “off at a homeless
shelter” in Modesto, California, and “allowed the
homeless shelter to confiscate” the daughter's
phone. (Doc. 1 at 10.) At approximately 8:30 a.m. that day,
“after allegedly ringing [Plaintiff's] front
doorbell, while [Plaintiff's] daughter was at the
homeless shelter, ” Defendant Laura Rodriguez
“placed [Plaintiff's] daughter into protective
custody without a warrant, ” and “without an
emergency[.]” (Id.) At 8:36 a.m., Defendant
Laura Rodriguez left a voicemail on Plaintiff's phone
requesting that Plaintiff call her back to “discuss
what happened last night between [Plaintiff] and her
daughter.” (Id.) At 2:30 p.m., Defendant Laura
Rodriguez stated to Plaintiff that “[Plaintiff] wanted
to leave [her] daughter in the backyard” and gave
Plaintiff an address for a court hearing on November 15,
2017. (Id.) On November 12, 2017, Plaintiff emailed
Defendant Laura Rodriguez to refute her allegations that
Plaintiff wanted to keep her daughter in the backyard, but
she ignored the emails. (Id.)
On
November 15, 2017, Plaintiff went to court and received a
“Juvenile Dependency Petition and Detention report,
” which contained “shocking . . . fabricated
evidence” and was “perjured.” (Id.
at 11.) The report allegedly “perjuriously”
stated that Plaintiff's daughter “ran away”
and when the police brought her home to Plaintiff's
house, they found Plaintiff had “been drinking heavily,
” “locked herself in her room, and refused to
talk to the police.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims
these events were “conjured up and fabricated by”
Defendants Laura Rodriguez and Kimberly Rodriguez. (See
id.) Plaintiff alleges the report further falsely stated
that Defendant Stanislaus County Community Services agency
had a “concern” that Plaintiff “had an
alcohol abuse problem, ” and that “[t]hey”
never notified Plaintiff “of their false concern”
that she had an alcohol abuse problem. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that at court on November 15, 2017, she
“denied the allegations and the court based off of the
lies of the social workers.” (See id.)
Plaintiff alleges that she repeatedly tried to schedule
visitations with her daughter, but in court paperwork
“they” stated that Plaintiff “failed to
schedule any visitations with [her] daughter.” (See
Id. at 11-12.)
On
November 16, 2017, Plaintiff went to the “Community
Services Agency, where the social workers were located,
” “with the yellow referral that [Plaintiff] was
given in the court, ” to “clear up the false
‘concern' that [she] had an alcohol abuse problem,
” when Defendant Wilbur “came running out to the
waiting area and asked [Plaintiff] to fill out a family
questionnaire.” (Id. at 12.) Defendant
Ballasch later called Plaintiff into his office and
“began reading off of the Juvenile Dependency Petition
and Detention report, reading off the false allegations,
” and then informed Plaintiff she would “have to
attend 2 to 3 AA meetings per week and get a hair follicle
test.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges she took a drug
test at the office and passed, but Defendant Ballasch
nonetheless “completed recommendations and without a
basis, that [Plaintiff] attend 2 to 3 AA meetings per week,
get a hair follicle test, ” and “never noting
that [Plaintiff] took a urine test that was clean[.]”
(Id. at 12-13.) Defendant Wilbur also “created
a referral to individual and family counseling . . . with no
specified reason.” (Id. at 13.)
Plaintiff
alleges that in January 2018, Defendants Wilbur and Ballasch
“filed” the “AOD Referral with fabricated
recommendations and without a basis” that was used
“to substantiate . . . that [Plaintiff] had an alcohol
abuse disorder.” (Id.) Plaintiff
“submitted Objections and Corrections to the social
workers to correct their reports with documents, phone
records, signed letters, one from [Plaintiff's] mother
showing that the social workers were lying.”
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges she emailed
“Stanislaus County Counsel” to “point[] out
that they were lying, and that [Plaintiff] would report [the
Stanislaus County attorney] to the state bar . . . for
misleading the Judge and for perjury[.]” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges the attorney for Stanislaus County instead
“went before the court and stated [Plaintiff]
threatened her, made a show in front of the court as if I
were dangerous and considered a restraining order. This was
to intimidate [Plaintiff].” (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Harwell, “the Director, ”
received copies of Plaintiff's “filed reports, yet
she did nothing about it.” (Id.)
Plaintiff
alleges that “the social workers” never conducted
an “in person investigation with [Plaintiff]” and
“intentionally avoided [Plaintiff], refused to
investigate their wrongdoings, perjured themselves, lied to
the court and egregiously blamed [Plaintiff] for their lack
of actions and wrongful conduct, and put [Plaintiff] through
a living hell.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that
“the social workers'” conduct “amounted
to kidnapping, extortion, and cruel mental torture.”
(Id. at 14.)
B.Legal
Standards
1.
...