Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01024/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

• 

FILED 

I SEP 1 3 1011 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALiFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAREY DWAYNE DORSEY, CASE NO. 11-cv-1024 BEN (RBB) 

Plaintiff, ORDER DISlVIISSING ACTION 

vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff Carey Dwayne Dorsey filed a Complaint alleging violation ofthe 

Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a 

request for the appointment of counsel. (Docket Nos. 2, 3.) On June 6, 2011, the Court granted 

Plaintiff s motion to proceed informa pauperis, denied Plaintiff s request for appointment ofcounsel, 

and dismissed the action without prejudice. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 19,2011. 

(Docket No.8.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Complaint. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges "TORTS, of Slander, libel, assault, & false 

incarceration, lost wages, Pain, And Suffering, And emotional distress, And VIOLATIONS, OF THE 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, (ADA), commented [sic] aginist [sic] me by the SAN 

DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND OFFICER JOE HART." (FirstAm.Compl. 

at 1.) The only specific facts Plaintiff alleges are as follows: 

A DISCRIMINATION ACT VIOLATION OF THE ADA, was commented [sic] 

- 1 - 11 cvl 024 

Case 3:11-cv-01024-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 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 

.. 

aginist [sic] me by the San Diego Probation Departments, 2006-2007, Full Probation 

Report:, to my probation # 595911 to my San Diego Supeior [ sic] Court ofCalifornia, 

County of SAN DIEGO CASE # SCE268049. On Page # Eight of the Probation 

Departments Full Report, the reporting officer stated, That I HAD CURRENTLY 

ACCURED [sic] A NEW DRUG HABBIT [sic]. For which this one false slanderlous 

[sic] statement written about me in this Full Probation Report, And the civil rights and 

Discrimation [sic] ACTS VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA; were the outcome of the 

Assult [sic]. Causing me to receive 'torts' ofAssult (sic], libel & slander, false arrest, 

false Incarceration, Puntitive [sic] Damage's such as lost wage's, Emotional distress, 

etc, etc,. 

(Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also claims that the facts of this action are "Detailed out In my, Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Discrimination 

Complaint FORMS, WITH THE United States Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Division Disability 

Rights Section Case # 204-12-0." (Id. at 3.) 

DISCUSSION 

A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, informa pauperis under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint is 

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

from a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Having reviewed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that 

the pleading fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

The legal sufficiency of a complaint is tested under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)( 6). 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate 

ifthe complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544,556-57 (2007). That is, the complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation 

that discovery will reveal evidence ofthe claim. Id. at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F .2d 530, 534 

(9th Cir. 1984). The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill 

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants are not "excused from 

knowing the most basic pleading requirements." Am. Assoc. ofNaturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 

227 F.3d 11 04, 11 07 (9th Cir. 2000). 

- 2- llcvl024 

Case 3:11-cv-01024-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 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 

.. 

Here, Plaintifrs First Amended Complaint is legally insufficient. Plaintiff has failed to allege 

facts that establish a prima facie case for discrimination under Title II ofthe APA, slander, or libeL 

See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) ("To establish a violation ofTitle II of 

the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was 

excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity's 

services, programs, or activities, and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of her 

disability."); Siam v. Kizilbash, 130 Cal. App. 4th 1563, 1581 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2005) ("[C]auses 

of action for libel and slander require evidence of false and unprivileged publications that have a 

tendency to injure a person in the manner described in the statutes."); Mann v. Quality Old Time Serv., 

Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 90,106 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) ("To establish a prima facie case for slander, 

a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a 

natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage."). In addition, Plaintiff fails to layout facts 

that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of assault, false arrest, lost 

wages, emotional distress, and pain and suffering. To state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff must 

allege his claims with more clarity so that the defending party is capable of forming a response. 

Although Plaintiff argues that the facts are laid out in "Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act 

Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of1973 Discrimination Complaint FORMS, WITH THE United 

States Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section Case # 204-12-0," (First 

Am. Compl. at 3), the First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any 

superseding pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 15.1. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintifrs First 

Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint that corrects the 

deficiencies outlined above. Any such amended complaint must be filed no later than October 24, 

III 

III 

III 

- 3 - I IcvI024 

Case 3:11-cv-01024-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 4
.. 

1 2011. The second amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded 

2 pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the 

3 amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

-4- llcvl024 

Case 3:11-cv-01024-BEN-RBB Document 9 Filed 09/13/11 Page 4 of 4