Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01750/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01750-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

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

Lance R. Martin,

Plaintiff,

v.

MTS Officers R. Berg and M. Rinni,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S IFP MOTION AND 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 2)

The Court reviewed plaintiff Lance Martin’s complaint and motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. The Court finds Martin failed to state a claim and dismisses his complaint

without prejudice. The Court denies as moot Martin’s IFP motion.

I. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 

on its own dismissal motion before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127

(“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 

that fails to state a claim”). Accordingly, the Court “may dismiss as frivolous complaints 

Case 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL Document 4 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

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

reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts . . . .” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). “[A] complaint must 

contain 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 Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A complaint is facially plausible when the facts 

alleged allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id.

A. Martin’s Allegations Against Defendants

Martin brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendants R. Berg and M. Rinni.

(Doc. No. 1.) Martin alleges that on November 11, 2016, MTS Police Officer R. Berg 

falsely charged Martin with fare evasion even though he had a valid fare pass provided by 

the San Diego Salvation Army S.T.E.P.S. program. (Doc. No. 1 at 6; 1-3 at 2.) Martin 

points to exhibit B, which is a copy of notice to appear citation from Berg dated November 

11, 2016 for fare evasion. (Doc. No. 1-3 at 4.) The ticket stated Martin is to appear at the 

San Diego Superior Court Traffic Division on January 11, 2017. (Id.)

Martin also alleges that MTS Police Officer M. Rinni, on April 9, 2017, similarly 

checked his fare card, but deliberately kept the scanner in the off position, not pushing the 

button to activate it, subsequently not allowing his card to register that it has sufficient 

funds. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) Martin alleges Rinni ordered him to exit the Trolley and claims 

he “did not feel free to leave under [Rinni’s] authority. . . .” (Id.) Martin alleges Rinni then 

charged him for fare evasion and “falsely arrested” him “without probable cause, stopping 

Plaintiffs [sic] movement, from work, and not have his person unlawfully seized, also to 

be falsely arrested . . . .” (Id.) Rinni also gave Martin a notice to appear citation, attached 

as exhibit F. (Doc. No. 1-3 at 11.) While this photocopy is difficult to read, it is dated

April 9, 2017, and appears to be for fare evasion. (Id.) He also alleges a First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Rinni. (Doc. No. 1 at 7.)

B. Legal Standards

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, 

Case 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL Document 4 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

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

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. Wyatt 

v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 

two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 

under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Long v. Cnty. of Los 

Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

“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.” Lacey 

v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). “Probable cause exists if the arresting officers ‘had knowledge 

and reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances sufficient to lead a 

prudent person to believe that [the arrestee] had committed or was committing a crime.’” 

Maxwell v. Cnty. of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States 

v. Ricardo D., 912 F.2d 337, 342 (9th Cir. 1990)).

C. Discussion

1. False Arrest under § 1983

Martin contends both times the officers cited him for fare evasion he was falsely 

arrested. However, Martin produced no evidence of an actual arrest, only a detention period 

in which the officers gave him a citation. The Court has no facts regarding how long each 

officer stopped Martin for or any details surrounding each incident.

An officer is permitted to detain someone for the purposes of investigating a 

violation. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614 (2015). “A routine traffic stop

. . . is a relatively brief encounter and is more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop’ . . . than 

to a formal arrest.” Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117 (1998) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). The Fourth Amendment requires the length and scope of the detention 

be “strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation 

permissible.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 19 (1968) (internal citations omitted). An 

officer is permitted to detain an individual for the amount of time necessary to execute a 

Case 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL Document 4 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

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

traffic citation. Sameth v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 10–6565–ODW (RZx), 2011 WL 

6937275, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011). A constitutional violation would arise if an 

officer continued their detention without probable cause after the officer obtained enough 

information to issue a citation. United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90–91 (9th Cir. 1973) 

(per curiam) (finding that an individual stopped for jay-walking may be detained “only the 

time necessary to obtain satisfactory identification from the violator and to execute a traffic 

citation.”).

It appears Martin was either the subject of a Terry stop, where the officers briefly 

detained him to find out if he was evading fare, or he was detained while being ticketed (or 

both). But, neither a Terry stop nor a detention to issue a citation rise to an unlawful arrest 

under § 1983. And while the Court is required to construe Martin’s pleadings liberally, as 

he is a pro se plaintiff, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply 

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Other than Martin’s conclusory statements that Berg and 

Rinni “falsely arrested” him for fare evasion, (Doc. No. 1 at 6–8), there are no other 

supporting facts or evidence proving Martin was actually arrested or detained for an 

unreasonable amount of time on either occasion. 

Without more details, Martin’s complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements 

under Iqbal. This complaint contains the type of bare legal assertions without supporting 

facts that the Ninth Circuit directs the court to dismiss as frivolous. Franklin, 745 F.2d at

1228. If Martin has more information regarding the timeline of the incidents or any other 

pertinent details, he should include them in an amended pleading. Thus, the Court 

DISMISSES without prejudice the § 1983 claim.

b. First Amendment Retaliation

Martin alleges Rinni retaliated against his First Amendment rights. He states, “[t]he 

decision was made to again falsely charge Plaintiff with fare evasion, which is commonly 

known as stacking charges, retaliating against Plaintiff violating his rights under the First 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for exercising his protected legal rights.”

Case 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL Document 4 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-cv-1750-AJB-JMA

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

(Doc. No. 1 at 7.)

“In order to demonstrate a First Amendment violation, a plaintiff must provide 

evidence showing that by his actions [the defendant] deterred or chilled [the plaintiff’s] 

political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the 

defendant’s] conduct.” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). “[T]he proper inquiry asks whether an 

official’s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First 

Amendment activities.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Here, Martin does not plead sufficient facts supporting a retaliatory claim under the 

First Amendment because he does not allege he was engaged in, or attempting to engage 

in, any type of protected speech when Rinni ticketed him. To prevail on this theory, Martin 

must have shown evidence that his protected speech was chilled by Rinni’s citation. He 

only alleges he was “exercising his protected legal rights” at the time Rinni approached 

him, but this allegation alone is not enough to plausibly state a claim. Again, this claim 

falls short of the Iqbal standard. There are simply no facts in the complaint alleging Martin 

was engaged in protected speech of which Rinni retaliated against. Thus, the Court 

DISMISSES without prejudice this cause of action as well. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court:

1) DENIES as moot Martin’s IFP motion, (Doc. No. 2);

2) DISMISSES without prejudice the § 1983 claim against all defendants;

3) DISMISSES without prejudice the First Amendment Retaliation claim against 

Rinni; and

4) GRANTS Martin leave to amend his complaint by October 26, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: October 8, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL Document 4 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5