Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921-1/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 DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE AUDIO AND 

VIDEO FILES IN SUPPORT OF FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT;

SCREENING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915;

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND; AND DISMISSING ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 13, 14]

Plaintiff Jerome Lemeal Williams, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this action on 

November 15, 2018 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF 1, 4. The 

Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and conducted a mandatory 

initial screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See ECF 8, 11. The Court dismissed 

the complaint with leave to amend, stating that it could not discern any coherent claim from 

Plaintiff’s allegations, which touched on a wide variety of subjects including Plaintiff’s conviction 

for rape, removal of Plaintiff’s children from his custody, the mental illness and disappearance of 

an individual named Clara L. Quarels, Plaintiff’s termination from employment, and the overmedication of Plaintiff’s grandfather. See ECF 11.

On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), a 

declaration in support of the FAC, and an administrative motion for leave to file audio and video 

files in support of the FAC. See ECF 13, 14, 16. For the reasons discussed below, the 

administrative motion is DENIED, the FAC is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, 

and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 20 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 3
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

 I. DISCUSSION

As set forth in the Court’s prior order screening Plaintiff’s original complaint, any 

complaint filed by a 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.

Plaintiff’s FAC must be dismissed under these standards. In reaching this conclusion, the 

Court has considered the facts alleged in both the FAC and in Plaintiff’s supporting declaration. 

Those facts simply do not state any coherent claim. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed an 

administrative motion seeking leave to submit audio and video files in support of his FAC. That 

motion is DENIED. Plaintiff must allege facts in his written pleading which, if proved, would 

entitle him to relief. The contents of the audio and video files are not relevant to the Court’s 

determination whether Plaintiff has satisfied his pleading burden. 

Plaintiff’s FAC contains little in the way of factual allegations, for the most part directing 

the reader to Plaintiff’s declaration for the relevant facts. The FAC does list 20 defendants, both 

individuals and entities, and does state that Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the 

“Basis for Jurisdiction” section of the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Monterey County “used its peace 

officers to bully, harass, and deprive private citizens of their civil liberties.” FAC at 3, ECF 13. 

Neither the FAC nor the supporting declaration explain how or when Monterey County peace 

officers engaged in such conduct. The declaration contains numerous references to the Seaside 

Police Department, describing an “altercation” between Plaintiff and Seaside Police Officers in 

2000, Decl. ¶ 3; Plaintiff’s arrest in 2011 “for four different felonies about my registration and 

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 20 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 3
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

being around kids,” Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; and a conversation between Plaintiff and Seaside Police 

Officer Higgins in 2017 in which Officer Higgins allegedly mentioned Plaintiff’s rape conviction 

and stated that Plaintiff would not see his children again until they turn 18, Decl. ¶¶ 44. Plaintiff 

does not explain how these interactions violated his civil rights so as to give rise to a claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The declaration as a whole, which comprises 62 paragraphs, describes in narrative fashion 

various events in Plaintiff’s life during the period 2000 to 2018. The recitation of events is 

disjointed – little or no context is given with respect to many of the events, and the relationship of 

the events to each other is unclear. Plaintiff appears to believe that he was treated unfairly by

numerous persons during this time period, including: judges and lawyers involved in several 

criminal prosecutions against him; social services personnel who removed his children from his 

custody; hospital staff; school district personnel; and church personnel. See Decl. ¶¶ 3-62. 

Even applying the most liberal of standards to the FAC and declaration, the Court cannot 

discern any cognizable federal claim. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to cure the deficiencies in his 

original complaint, and absent any indication that he could allege a viable claim if granted further 

leave to amend, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. The Court therefore 

DISMISSES the FAC WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

DISMISSES the action WITH PREJUDICE. See Hicks v. Rowe, 498 F. App’x 737 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(affirming dismissal without leave to amend under § 1915(e)(2)(B) where complaint failed to state 

a claim and amendment would have been futile). 

 III. ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND; and 

(2) The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: February 14, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 20 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 3