Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01642/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

RHEANNA D. KENNEDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01642-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

Rheanna D. Kennedy ("Plaintiff"), who proceeds pro se, commenced the above-captioned 

case on April 10, 2015. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Pl.'s IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is, therefore, GRANTED. 

Plaintiff's complaint, however, must be dismissed with leave to amend, because the complaint fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court "shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain "a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." But "a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action" and "conclusory statements" are not adequate. 

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 5 Filed 05/14/15 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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 

probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully . . . . When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's 

liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal citations omitted).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). "A pro se complaint, however inartfully 

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . . " 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (internal citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's claims stem from the alleged warrantless removal of two minor children. 

(Compl. ¶¶ IV.1-3, Dkt. No. 1.) She alleges that on February 7, 2013, Elizabeth Martinez visited 

three separated residences, accompanied by police departments from three different cities, to 

illegally remove her children. (Id.) 

Based on the events surrounding and following this alleged warrantless removal, Plaintiff 

commenced this action against the Sonoma County Superior Court, the Sonoma County Human 

Services Department (CPS), the Sonoma County Public Defender's Office, the Rohnert Park 

Police Department, the Santa Rose Police Department, the El Sobrante Police Department, Judge 

James Bertoli, Public Defender Bonnie Alonzo, Public Defender David Fuller, Patty Ramano, 

Jackie Gillespie, Juana Marquez, Shannen Fraley, and Elizabeth Martinez ("Defendants"). 

(Compl. ¶¶ III.3-12.) 

In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her civil rights, (2) a claim "[f]or violation of Plaintiffs State 

Rights CA § 52.1," (3) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) a claim for 

"Negligence, Disregard and Malice," (5) "Deprivation of Due Process, Breach of contract," and (6)

a claim for abuse of process. (Id.)

While she asserts claims against fifteen different Defendants, the bare assertions in the 

complaint fail to give many of these Defendants fair notice of the claims asserted against them. 

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 5 Filed 05/14/15 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

For example, Plaintiff alleges that Judge James Bertoli "deprived Plaintiff of civil rights, allowed 

Human Services Department to lie, manipulate, withhold information, fabric [sic] evidence and 

neglected to prevent all action-U.S.C. 42 § 1986." (Compl. ¶ III.5.) She similarly alleges that

Public Defender Bonnie Alonzo "allowed [the] court and CPS to deprive Plaintiff of civil rights 

and state laws and statute laws of California (WIC) laws and was basically ineffective and 

negligent as council [sic] to Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ III.6.) The allegations concerning Public Defender 

David Fuller, Patty Ramano, Jackie Gillespie, and Juana Marquez are similarly conclusory. (See 

id. ¶¶ III.7-10.) With respect to the three police departments named as Defendants, Plaintiff 

merely alleges that "Martinez went to three separate residences along with police departments 

from three different cities." (Compl. ¶ IV.1.) The remaining allegations in the complaint only 

refer to Defendants generally, and with the exception of a few instances of specific conduct by 

Martinez and Fraley, the Court is unable to discern which defendant engaged in what conduct. 

Thus, the allegations in the complaint, even when liberally construed, do not "contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." See 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

The Court notes that even if Plaintiff could properly allege facts showing that Judge 

Bertoli engaged in any of the conduct that is the basis for Plaintiff's claims, absolute immunity 

would likely attach to his actions. See Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1985) 

("Absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly and completely 

outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Allegations of malice or bad faith in the execution of the 

officer's duties are insufficient to sustain the complaint when the officer possesses absolute 

judicial immunity."); Haile v. Sawyer, No. C 02-5723 MJJ, 2003 WL 1907661, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 14, 2003) ("It is well-settled that judges are immune from civil suit for actions taken in their 

judicial capacity, unless 'taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.'") (citation omitted). 

Any claim against the Sonoma County Superior Court would also be barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment, which renders state entities immune from tort actions for damages. See Hyland v. 

Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir. 1997). To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting ineffective 

assistance of counsel or otherwise challenges the court proceedings, an appeal is the appropriate 

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 5 Filed 05/14/15 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

method to address her claims.

Plaintiff has also failed to separately plead each cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ("A 

party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable 

to a single set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a 

separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense."). Plaintiff's

second cause of action is for violations of "Plaintiffs State Rights CA § 52.1," but in the section 

related to that claim, she alleges that "[t]he specific acts by Defendants violated Article I, Section 

13 of the Constitution of the State of California and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1." (Compl. ¶ V.1.) 

Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is "For Negligence, Disregard and Malice," and her fifth cause of 

action is captioned "Deprivation of Due Process, Breach of Contract." For the sake of clarity, 

Plaintiff should separately plead each cause of action, along with the specific facts that support 

each one and specific facts pertaining to each defendant. Plaintiff should also be sure to identify 

the proper legal basis for each of her claims. Disregard and malice, for example, describe mental 

states, not separate claims for relief. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is also dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file a

first amended complaint within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff is on notice that the first amended 

complaint will supersede the original complaint, such that it will be treated as nonexistent. See 

Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by 

Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 (2005). For this reason, Plaintiff shall properly identify the legal 

and factual bases for all of her claims, free of any reference to any prior complaint, and she shall 

clearly identify the specific claims asserted against each defendant. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 

(9th Cir. 2012). She shall also allege specific facts pertaining to each defendant under each 

applicable cause of action. The first amended complaint shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 5.2, which outlines specific requirements that apply to certain pleadings, including 

those naming minors. Failure to file a first amended complaint within 30 days of this order may 

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 5 Filed 05/14/15 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

result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

To ensure that her first amended complaint complies with this order, Plaintiff may wish to 

contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling 

(415) 782-8982. The Court has also adopted a manual for use by pro se litigants, which may be 

helpful to Plaintiff. This manual, and other free information is available online at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:05/14/15 __________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 5 Filed 05/14/15 Page 5 of 5