Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00755/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00755-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONN TODD, No. CIV.S-05-0755 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

ORDER AND

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CAPTAIN CHRIS DAY, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. By prior order the court

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has

now filed an amended complaint.

As the undersigned previously advised plaintiff, the in

forma pauperis statute authorizes the court to dismiss a case if the

court determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 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

2

when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court shall

dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff’s difficult to decipher amended complaint is

subject to dismissal under these standards. Liberally construed,

plaintiff’s amended complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The named defendants, as in the initial complaint, are Los

Rios Community College School District Police Department, its Chief

of Police Rickey Jones and Captain Chris Day. Also named as

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 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

1 Liberally construed, plaintiff’s amended complaint concerns

the well-known case of Nikolai Soltys, an individual who was the

subject of a major manhunt in Northern California in 2001 following

the alleged murder of his pregnant wife, son and other relatives. 

Mr. Soltys was apprehended in 2001 and died in the Sacramento County

Jail while criminal proceedings were pending. Although it is not

entirely clear from plaintiff’s pleadings, it appears that the crux

of this action may be plaintiff’s belief that the deaths of some of

Soltys’ family members would have been prevented if local authorities

had timely and thoroughly responded to plaintiff’s complaint

regarding the incident that he alleges took place at American River

College. 

3

defendants are the Los Rios Community College School District and

district employees Marie B. Smith and Celia Esposito-Noy. The

allegations of the amended complaint arise out of an alleged crime at

American River College, where plaintiff was a student. Specifically,

plaintiff alleges that he witnessed an individual identified as “Mr.

Soltyz” assault his wife, “Mrs. Soltyz,” with a potato peeler. 

According to the amended complaint, plaintiff attempted to make a

report to responding American River College police officers but was

rebuffed as a result of one officer’s desire not to deal with

plaintiff. While plaintiff ultimately was able to report the alleged

assault, he next became frustrated with the actions of defendants

Jones, Day, Smith and Esposito-Noy as he attempted to report the

alleged misconduct by the American River College police officer.1

Similar to the complaint originally filed in this action,

the amended complaint contains scattered violations regarding

harassment, invasion of privacy, concealment of a crime, conspiracy

and the like. The precise nature of plaintiff’s intended claims

remains unclear. The amended complaint makes some attempt to allege

a denial of the right to petition the government for the redress of a

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 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

2 In this regard, the amended complaint prays for a published

written apology and compensatory and punitive damages.

4

grievance under the First Amendment as well as the denial of the

“right to sue” and “right to privacy” under the Fourteenth

Amendment.2 However, just like the original complaint, the amended

complaint does not specifically allege how the conduct complained of

has resulted in plaintiff being deprived of a right, privilege or

immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person

acting under color of state law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120

(9th Cir. 1992); Lopez v. Dept. of Health Serv., 939 F.2d 881, 883

(9th Cir. 1991). No actual connection or link between the actions of

the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by

plaintiff is alleged. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436

U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 

The undersigned noted nearly identical deficiencies in the

order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint. In that order,

plaintiff was forewarned that a failure to file an amended complaint

complying with the court’s directives would likely result in a

recommendation that the action be dismissed. As noted above,

plaintiff’s amended complaint is still deficient and the undersigned

finds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Moreover, in light of the deficiencies cited above, any

further attempt to amend would be futile. See Reddy v. Litton

Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman Wine Co.

v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 4 of 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

5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August

22, 2005, and September 16, 2005, requests that the court direct the

United States Marshal to serve process in this case are denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint

be dismissed without further leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 21, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\todd0755.ac.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 5 of 5