Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03157/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDY STEWART,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv3157-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Candy Stewart, who is proceeding pro se, filed her complaint in this action,

along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion shows she is without funds

to pay the filing fee, and is therefore GRANTED.

The Court is required to required to screen the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in

forma pauperis, and to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

is also obligated to examine jurisdictional issues, such as standing, regardless of whether

either party raises the issue, and to dismiss the complaint if jurisdiction is lacking. See

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 

The complaint alleges that Charles Montgomery, who apparently is a police officer,

questioned Stewart’s son at school about Stewart’s possibly having abused him. The

complaint says this was done without the school’s knowledge, or the presence of either

- 1 - 13cv3157
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

parent or an attorney. The complaint also alleges that Montgomery followed Steawrt home,

encountered her in front of her residence, and tried to question her. She refused, and told

him she would not discuss anything without an attorney being present. She seeks $2 million

in damages “for him not obeying the law by questioning a chidl without an attorney or his

parents.”

Police may question children about suspected abuse, even in the absence of parents

or an attorney. See K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains Sch. Dist., 921 F. Supp. 2d 197, 216

(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding “no authority” from any court to support the argument that police

may not interview a minor child in connection with an abuse investigation without parental

consent). And even assuming that police could not constitutionally do this, Stewart has no

standing to seek damages for this violation on her own behalf. In addition, the fact that

Montgomery encountered Stewart outside, in front of her residence, and tried to question

her, is not actionable. This is particularly true because the complaint makes clear Stewart

was free to, and did, refuse to answer. See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 115 (law

enforcement officers must cease questioning when a suspect exercises the right to remain

silent); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 454 (1994) (law enforcement officers cease

questioning a suspect who asserts the right to counsel). And although the complaint names

the “County of San Diego Social Services” as a Defendant, it makes no allegations against

the county or any county entity.

Because it is clear the complaint fails to state a claim, and cannot be successfully

amended, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv3157