Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01958/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01958-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RYAN TAIAROL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-1958 SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 36) for 

screening. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable 

claims that he was charged based on false evidence but fails to state any other claims. Plaintiff 

will be given the choice of proceeding immediately on his claims found potentially cognizable or 

amending the second amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on the potentially 

cognizable claims, he will voluntarily dismiss all other claims. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff filed his original complaint in October 2021 and a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis in May 2022. (ECF Nos. 1, 15.) Before he filed the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) After he was granted in forma 

pauperis status, the court screened the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) The court found 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 9
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 

2 

plaintiff was attempting to state claims that search warrants were issued based on allegations 

defendants knew to be false. The court held that plaintiff stated no cognizable claims for relief 

under §1983 and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. 

 In December 2022, plaintiff filed another amended complaint, also docketed as a “first 

amended complaint” (“December 2022 first amended complaint”). (ECF No. 22.) Defendant 

City of Stockton moved to dismiss this complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The City argued that plaintiff’s 

claims arising out of his 2017 arrest, were barred by the statute of limitations and by the favorable 

termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court dismissed the motion 

without prejudice as premature. (ECF No. 28.) In July 2024, the court dismissed the December 

2022 first amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 34.) On August 26, plaintiff filed 

a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) 

SCREENING 

I. Legal Standards 

As described in the court’s prior screening orders, the court is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 

in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 

addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 

deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Plaintiff 

may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s “personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a series of 

acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the 

defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional 

injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

II. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff identifies the following defendants: (1) City of Stockton; (2) Stockton Chief of 

Police Womack; (3) Stockton Police Sergeant Kyle Pierce; (4) Stockton Police Sergeant Ryan 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 9
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 

3 

Taiarol; (5) Stockton Police Detective Jason Mamaril; (6) Stockton Police Detective Paul 

Gutierrez; (7) Stockton Police Detective Miroslava Moreno; (8) Stockton Police Detective 

Kathryn Abdallah; and (9) CDCR Special Agent Christopher Paris. (ECF No. 36 at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff’s lengthy allegations are largely the same as those he made in the December 2022 first 

amended complaint. Plaintiff argues that defendants obtained multiple search warrants based on 

the false assertion that plaintiff was a validated member of a gang classified as a criminal street 

gang under California law. 

Plaintiff also alleges defendants Paris, Mamaril, Taiarol, Abdallah, and Moreno testified 

falsely before the grand jury that plaintiff was a validated member of three criminal street/prison 

gangs. (ECF No. 36 at 14, 15, 19, 20, 25-26.) Plaintiff contends defendants Gutierrez and 

Womack then “illegally charged” him with gang crimes. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff further alleges that 

he was illegally arrested for gang crimes based on false evidence. (Id. at 24.) 

Plaintiff contends defendants City of Stockton and Womack knew about the misconduct 

of the officers and failed to take action to correct it or discipline the officers, failed to take 

adequate precautions in the hiring and retention of officers, and failed to adequately respond to 

complaints about officer misconduct. (ECF No. 36 at 23-24.) 

In October 2017, plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes which included a gang charge 

and twenty gang enhancements. (ECF No. 36 at 20.) On March 15, 2021, the gang allegations 

were dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff pleaded no contest to a number of crimes and was 

sentenced to twenty-one years in prison.1 Plaintiff contends a deputy district attorney moved to 

dismiss the gang charges and enhancements. In her motion, the attorney stated that “there may 

have been a mistake with respect to Mr. Rodriguez.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff states that as a result of defendants’ conduct in causing him to be charged with a 

crime and enhancements based on false gang allegations, he suffered humiliation, emotional 

distress, and pain and suffering. In addition, he incurred expenses including legal fees. (ECF No. 

1

 Plaintiff filed a habeas corpus petition in this court in 2022. Rodriguez v. Madden, 2:22-cv1539 WBS KJN P. The facts underlying plaintiff’s conviction are set out in the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 25 at 2-4.) The district judge denied the 

petition on August 25, 2023. (ECF No. 28.) 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 9
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 

4 

36 at 22, 28.) Plaintiff states that success on his claims will not invalidate the charges to which he 

plead guilty and he is not seeking to invalidate them. (Id. at 23.) 

III. Does Plaintiff State Claims under § 1983?

A. Challenges to Warrants 

Plaintiff clarifies in his second amended complaint that he does not seek to challenge the 

charges to which he pled guilty. Rather, he seeks to challenge the gang charges that were 

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is primarily a long account of 

the many warrants he contends were issued based on false gang allegations. However, plaintiff 

does not explain how those warrants resulted in information that lead to the gang-related charges. 

If the warrants resulted in information that lead to other charges, then a finding in this court that 

those warrants were invalid would affect the bases for those other charges. Plaintiff fails to show 

he received a favorable termination of the other charges which might permit him to proceed to 

recover damages in this §1983 action based on those other charges. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 

U.S. 477 (1994). 

Moreover, plaintiff again fails to show that the “deliberate fabrication [of the affidavits in 

support of the warrant applications] caused the plaintiff’s deprivation of liberty.” Spencer v. 

Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff makes only conclusory statements that 

without the fabrications in the affidavits there was no independent probable cause for the search 

warrants. (See ECF No. 36 at 8-12, 14.) Plaintiff fails to state cognizable claims regarding the 

falsification of affidavits in support of search warrants. Further, it is does not seem likely 

plaintiff can state such claims if this §1983 action rests only plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the 

false gang allegations. Nonetheless, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to challenge the warrants, 

he will be given one final opportunity to amend his complaint to attempt to state such claims. 

B. Challenges to Grand Jury Testimony 

Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants knowingly testified falsely before the grand jury are 

minimally sufficient to allege a claim under §1983. Plaintiff has a “clearly established 

constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false 

evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 4 of 9
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 

5 

1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Caldwell v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 889 F.3d 1105, 1115 

(9th Cir. 2018) (“[A] §1983 plaintiff need not be convicted on the basis of the fabricated evidence 

to have suffered a deprivation of liberty - being criminally charged is enough.”) (citing 

Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1074-75).) Plaintiff alleges defendants Paris, Mamaril, Taiarol, Abdallah, 

and Moreno knowingly testified falsely. He will be permitted to proceed on the false evidence 

claims against those defendants. 

With respect to defendant Pierce, plaintiff’s allegation appears to be that when Pierce 

arrested plaintiff on different charges in 2009, Pierce knew plaintiff was not a gang member. 

Plaintiff does not allege specific facts showing that Pierce was involved in the falsification of 

grand jury testimony. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to state a claim against Pierce, that 

claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff states defendants Womack and Gutierrez “charged” him with gang crimes based 

on the false evidence. However, plaintiff does not allege facts showing that Womack and 

Gutierrez knew the evidence was false. Nor does plaintiff explain how those defendants, as 

opposed to the prosecutors, were responsible for filing the criminal charges. 

C. False Arrest 

“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth 

Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. 

City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Like his 

warrant claims, plaintiff fails to state facts showing that absent the false gang allegations he 

would not have been arrested. Plaintiff’s false arrest claim will be dismissed with leave to 

amend. 

D. Defendants City of Stockton and Womack

Plaintiff makes broad allegations that the City and Police Chief Womack failed to train 

and discipline the officer defendants. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim based 

on an unconstitutional policy or custom, he must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a 

constitutional right; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) the policy amounted to deliberate 

indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the moving force behind 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 5 of 9
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 

6 

the constitutional violation. Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 

1101, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s general statement that defendants had inappropriate 

training, hiring, and retention policies is insufficiently specific to connect any sort of policy with 

the harm plaintiff claims to have suffered. 

Plaintiff’s claim that these defendants failed to discipline the officers also fails. Plaintiff 

has no constitutional right to have officers disciplined and, even if he did, he fails to allege facts 

showing a connection between a failure to discipline and his alleged harm. 

CONCLUSION 

This court finds above that plaintiff states potentially cognizable due process claims 

against defendants Paris, Taiarol, Mamaril, Moreno, and Abdullah for giving false testimony to 

the grand jury. This court further finds that plaintiff fails to state any other claims for relief 

cognizable under §1983. Plaintiff will be given a choice. He may choose to proceed immediately 

on his false testimony claims against defendants Paris, Taiarol, Mamaril, Moreno, and Abdullah 

and dismiss his other claims or he may choose to file a third amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems with 

his second amended complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended 

complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated 

his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s 

charging allegations are as to each named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must 

include it in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended 

complaint so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff 

need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a 

short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a person deprives another of a 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 6 of 9
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 

7 

constitutional right if that person was personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by 

others that resulted in the deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the 

deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set 

forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 

534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which 

was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. However, “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is 

plausible when the plaintiff includes facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff states potentially cognizable due process claims against defendants Paris, 

Taiarol, Mamaril, Moreno, and Abdullah for giving false testimony to the grand jury. 

2. Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his potentially cognizable claims set out above or 

he may choose to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on 

his potentially cognizable claims in the second amended complaint, he shall 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 7 of 9
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 

8 

voluntarily dismiss his other claims and defendants. 

4. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 

5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: October 31, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 8 of 9
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RYAN TAIAROL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-1958 SCR P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his due process claims for false testimony 

against defendants Paris, Taiarol, Mamaril, Moreno, and Abdullah in the second 

amended complaint. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the 

complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the second amended complaint. 

DATED:______________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

 Steven R. Rodriguez, Plaintiff 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 37 Filed 10/31/24 Page 9 of 9