(PS)Valdez v. San Joaquin County Superior Court, No. 2:2021cv00615 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/10/2021 RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 4 ) be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and The Clerks Office be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS)Valdez v. San Joaquin County Superior Court Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN VALDEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:21-cv-00615-KJM-CKD PS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 16 (ECF No. 4.) Defendant. 17 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter is referred to the undersigned 18 19 by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 20 is before the court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 22 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on April 5, 2021, named the San Joaquin County 23 Superior Court as the sole defendant. The allegations in the original complaint were vague and 24 unclear but included the phrase “double prosecution” and claimed plaintiff was owed money for 25 22 years of pay at the minimum wage rate. 26 On May 19, 2021, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s original complaint and found it did 27 not state a valid claim for relief. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised he cannot proceed with civil 28 claims against the San Joaquin County Superior Court as a defendant because suits against a 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 county superior court or its employees are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v. 2 Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff was further 3 advised the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey bars any claim that would imply the invalidity of his 4 prior conviction. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Out of caution, plaintiff was granted leave to file a first 5 amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. 6 II. 7 PLEADING STANDARDS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of a claim or 8 claims that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 9 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 10 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 11 12 the court accepts the factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in the light most 13 favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 14 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain 15 more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements 16 of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). “Threadbare 17 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not 18 suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the court can grant 19 relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 20 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 21 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 22 23 III. SCREENING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The first amended complaint does not list any defendants. The words “double 24 prosecution” appear in lieu of any named defendants. The first amended complaint states plaintiff 25 is not suing the government. The first amended complaint states plaintiff “is asking for salary 26 wage for being in service as a working citizen within United States of America Judicial System.” 27 The first amended complaint cites the Thirteenth Amendment and alleges “no slavery provides a 28 right to a salary.” In addition, the first amended complaint states plaintiff seeks a “court order 2 1 judgment of interest affirmed” and a “money judgment settlement affirmed.” (ECF No. 4 at 2.) 2 The court liberally construes plaintiff’s pro se pleading. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 3 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam). 4 Liberally construed, the first amended complaint does not state a cause of action and does not 5 appear to include any factual content that could support a valid cause of action with amendment 6 to add additional facts. Plaintiff cannot proceed against the San Joaquin County Superior Court 7 and the first amended complaint fails to name any defendants. 8 9 This is not the first civil action filed in this court in which plaintiff Ivan Valdez seeks compensation based on vague or conclusory allegations of double prosecution and/or slavery. For 10 example, in Valdez v. State of California, No. 2:20-cv-1144-JAM-DB-PS, the court dismissed 11 without leave to amend plaintiff’s complaint alleging he was arrested in 1998 and subjected to 12 double prosecution. See Id., 2020 WL 6270636, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2020) (recommending 13 dismissal without leave to amend because plaintiff had unsuccessfully brought the same “double 14 prosecution” claim previously); see also Valdez v. Superior Ct. of California, No. 2:20-cv-1406- 15 JAM-EFB-PS, 2020 WL 4547183, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020) (recommending dismissal of 16 complaint in which plaintiff alleged he was denied “just compensation” and subjected to “double 17 prosecution”); Valdez v. California Cts., No. 2:19-cv-0174-MCE-DB-PS, 2019 WL 5290875, at 18 *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (finding plaintiff’s allegations to be delusional and frivolous in that 19 he alleged “slavery” and being forced “to work. . . in use of defense attorney in front of a Judge 20 California Court system”). 21 The first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and fails to name any 22 defendants and, accordingly, must be dismissed. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 23 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the 24 complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory”). Although the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure favor liberal amendment, valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue 26 delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility. California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan 27 Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath 28 Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall 3 1 be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). Given the defects noted 2 herein, the undersigned finds granting plaintiff further leave to amend in this case would be futile. 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED: 4 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) be dismissed without leave to amend 5 for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 6 2. The Clerk’s Office be directed to close this case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 12 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 13 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: June 10, 2021 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 8.Valdez.21cv615.screen.fac 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
