Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEROME LEMEAL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WENDY DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06921-BLF 

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915; DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

[Re: ECF 1, 9]

Plaintiff Jerome Lemeal Williams, proceeding pro se, seeks an award of damages in the 

amount of ten billion dollars for alleged violations of his civil rights by multiple state superior 

courts and police departments, a public defender’s office, a church, a hospital, individual superior 

court judges, and others. See Compl., ECF 1; Pl.’s Decl., ECF 2. On December 21, 2018, the 

Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis based upon Plaintiff’s showing 

that he cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. See Order Granting IFP 

Application, ECF 8. The Court indicated that it would conduct the initial screening of Plaintiff’s 

complaint required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as soon as was practicable. See id. The Court has 

conducted the initial screening, and for the reasons discussed below Plaintiff’s complaint is 

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and Motion for Emergency TRO, Order to 

Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction, Amend Claim and Declaration.” See ECF 9. On January 

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 11 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second document titled “Notice and Motion for Emergency TRO, Order 

to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction, Amend Claim and Declaration.” See ECF 10. For the 

reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), and for an 

Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction, is DENIED. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to 

amend his claims, leave to amend is granted in connection with the dismissal of the complaint.

 I. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915

A. Legal Standard

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a) is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In this context, a complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A 

complaint fails to state a claim unless it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible 

when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal under these standards. Plaintiff’s complaint, 

and accompanying declaration, are difficult to understand. See Compl., ECF 1; Pl.’s Decl., ECF 2. 

Neither document contains labeled claims, and the allegations set forth in the documents are 

disjointed and hard to follow. Plaintiff’s claims appear to be based in part on his conviction for 

rape, which Plaintiff alleges was unjust because the public defender’s office refused to represent 

him, the alleged victims lied, and the rape kits came back negative. Pl.’s Decl. at 4, ECF 2. He 

sues Judge Wendy Duffy, who presided over Plaintiff’s rape trial, as well as the public defender’s 

office. Id.

Other claims appear to be based on the conduct of Child Protective Services, which 

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 11 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allegedly removed Plaintiff’s children from his custody and performed a rape examination on his 

oldest daughter without parental consent. Pl.’s Decl. at 6, ECF 2. Plaintiff also refers to the 

mental illness and disappearance of Clara L. Quarels, who appears to be the mother of at least one 

of Plaintiff’s children. Pl.’s Decl. at 2-3, ECF 2. Plaintiff also lists jobs from which he was fired, 

and he describes the over-medication of his grandfather. Pl.’s Decl. at 6, ECF 2.

These allegations do not set forth any coherent claims. Accordingly, the complaint is 

subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff sues Judge Duffy 

for the manner in which she conducted Plaintiff’s rape trial, Judge Duffy is immune from suit. “A 

judge enjoys total immunity from suit for her actions except in two instances: when the judge's 

actions are nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, or when the 

judge’s actions, though judicial in nature, are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” 

Wright-Bolton v. Andress-Tobiasson, 696 F. App’x 258, 259 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation 

marks, citations, and alterations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should identify each claim and set forth facts supporting 

that claim in as clear a manner as possible. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to assert civil rights 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he “must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of State law.” Long v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 442 

F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court is unable to discern any other possible federal or state 

law claims Plaintiff may be attempting to raise.

 II. MOTION FOR TRO AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Legal Standard

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 

issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 

832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). The plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 11 Filed 01/03/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. 

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious 

questions going to the merits – a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a 

preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s 

favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 

F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a TRO, and an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction, to obtain 

the following relief:

1. File emergency restraining order against Monterey County (Local Government) 

in order to stop any and all excessive legalities against my children, their mothers 

and myself.

2. Ask for the court to grant me access to all my personal, medical, legal documents 

pertaining to claim filed against Monterey County and its Local Government.

3. Request postponement of eviction of Melissa Menchaca the mother of my 

daughter, for it has been done in retaliation for being the only person in the world 

trying to help me first with my Wrongful Conviction and also in 2017 while my 

three young children and their mother were being denied their civil and human 

rights from the County of Monterey and Every county and state department 

designed for the safety of children, woman and disabled adults.

4. Ask for CPS to release records of any and all complete reports regarding my 

children, including DW (18), AW(11), RW(8), JW(8), AMW(7).

Notice of Motion and Motion for Emergency TRO at 6, ECF 9.

In light of the Court’s determination that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, he 

cannot establish that he is likely to succeed or that there are serious questions going to the merits

of his claims. Having reached this conclusion, the Court need not reach the remainder of the 

Winter factors. See Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]t an irreducible 

minimum the moving party must demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions 

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 11 Filed 01/03/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

serious enough to require litigation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for an Order to Show Cause 

Re: Preliminary Injunction, which is based on the identical grounds as the motion for TRO, 

likewise is DENIED.

 III. ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

(2) Any amended pleading shall be filed on or before January 24, 2019. Leave to 

amend is limited to the claims and parties alleged in the original complaint. 

Plaintiff may not add claims or parties without obtaining prior leave of the Court.

(3) Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, and for an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary 

Injunction, is DENIED.

Dated: January 3, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 11 Filed 01/03/19 Page 5 of 5