Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01642/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01642-1/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 DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Rheanna D. Kennedy ("Plaintiff"), acting 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.) On May 14, 2015, the Court granted that application but 

dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2015. (Am. Compl. ("FAC"), 

Dkt. No. 6.) That complaint is also subject to dismissal, with leave to amend, for the reasons set 

forth below.

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. 

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

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 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

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

This action stems from the alleged warrantless removal of Plaintiff's two minor children. 

(FAC ¶¶ 5a, 5b.) The allegations in the complaint are as follows:

5A. In Sonoma County on February 7th 2013 Elizabeth Martinez (CPS) and a 

police officer came to my house without a warrant and seized my daughter.

5b. In Contra Costa County on February 7th 2013 a social worker and a police 

officer seized my son, again without a warrant.

5c. May 2013 a detriment finding stopped all visits w/ my children. My public 

defender Bonnie Alonzo failed to notify me where the meeting was at. I did not 

have a chance to fight for my visits.

5d. June 2013 I was black mailed by social worker Juana Marquez and CPS paid

therapist that if I admitted to something I didnt do I could see my children. I 

wouldnt lie.

5E. I was told by CPS that if I do their case plan I'd be reunited with what's 

LAWFULLY mine, my children. I graduated parenting classes, a drug diversion 

program, and attend one on one therapy where I was blackmailed by CPS PAID 

therapist Marilyn Stender. I attended domestic violence classes on my own dime 

and time as well as paid for anger management.

5f. Foster parents were never background checked and have also lied about my 

childrens sleeping arrangements.

5g. I was never given a fair and speedy trial by my peers to fight for my parental 

rights.

5h. Jv 180 was filed but dismissed without even looking at the evidence. I was 

mocked in a court room by Judge Robert Bertoli.

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 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

5I. I was misrepresented by david fuller. None of Sonoma Counties Public 

Defenders helped me.

...

5J. I was discriminated against because of the color of my hair. I dyed my hair in 

hopes that the system would see I'll do anything for my children.

(FAC ¶¶ 5A-5J (errors in original).)

Plaintiff names 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 Rosa Police Department, and the El Sobrante Police Department as 

Defendants. (Id. ¶ 1.) She also prays for "the immediate return of [her] children" and $4.5 million 

in damages, "[a]lthough no dollar amount will ever repair the damage that w[as] done to [her] 

children . . . and [her] family." (Id. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff's causes of action include a § 1983 claim for violation of her Fourteenth 

Amendment rights to familial association. While that claim may possibly be viable, the rest of the 

amended complaint is problematic. To the extent Plaintiff asserts any claims against Judge 

Bertoli, the Court has already explained 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 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). 

The Court also explained that any claim against the Sonoma County Superior Court would 

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). The Court further explained 

that to the extent Plaintiff alleges ineffective assistance of counsel or otherwise challenges the 

state court proceedings, an appeal is the appropriate method to address her claims.

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 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

With respect to any claims asserted against the Rohnert Park Police Department, the Santa 

Rosa Police Department, or the El Sobrante Police Department, Plaintiff has failed to allege any 

facts that would support an inference of liability. If she wishes to pursue any claims against these 

departments, then she must allege such facts.

Additionally, Plaintiff has 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."). Nor does she specify which claim is asserted against which defendant. For the sake of 

clarity and so that each defendant has fair notice of the claim, or claims, asserted against him or 

her, 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 and identify the proper defendants.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff is 

on notice that the second 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 second 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 

second amended complaint within 30 days of this order may result in dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute.

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 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

To ensure that her second 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.

Dated: 08/06/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01642-KAW Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 5