Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04610/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04610-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL PATRICK HARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-4610 EDL (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL

DISMISSAL; ORDER OF

SERVICE

Plaintiff, a Mississippi prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Lake County officials have deprived him of due

process regarding plaintiff’s real property. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge

jurisdiction. (Docket No. 6.) Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

separate order. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in part, and

served on the remaining defendants.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

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

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Although difficult to fully comprehend, plaintiff appears to allege that he entered into

a contract with Cecil Dunn. The contract stated that plaintiff would pay $300.00 a month to

inhabit and maintain two properties in Lake County belonging to Mr. Dunn, in consideration

for some kind of propietary ownership. Apparently, Mr. Dunn has since been deemed

incompetent. After a hearing declaring Mr. Dunn incompetent, defendant case workers Pat

Cichowicz and James Grogg evicted plaintiff and seized all of plaintiff’s property without

due process. Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim that defendants

Pat Cichowicz and James Grogg deprived plaintiff of his right to due process.

Plaintiff has also named the Estate of Cecil Dunn as a defendant. However, there is

no indication that the Estate of Cecil Dunn is a state actor, and thus, it is not acting under

the color of state law, as required to state a civil rights claim against it. Nor is there any

evidence that the Estate of Cecil Dunn acted or failed to act in a manner to deprive plaintiff

of his due process. Accordingly, the Estate of Cecil Dunn is DISMISSED from this action. 

Because it is beyond doubt that plaintiff can provide a set of facts against the Estate of

Cecil Dunn such that he states a cognizable claim, the dismissal is without leave to amend.

Plaintiff also names as a defendant Lake County Department of Social Services. 

However, to impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a

plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she

was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the

moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County

of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, Lake

County Department of Social Services is DISMISSED from this action. If plaintiff believes

that he can allege a constitutional claim against Lake County Department of Social

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Services, he may amend his complaint within twenty-eight days to do so. Plaintiff is

warned that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Claims not included

in an amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended

complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir.1992). 

C. Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prohibit

defendants from selling the Lake County properties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65

sets forth the procedure for issuance of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining

order (“TRO”). However, prior to granting a preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse

party is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary

injunction cannot be decided until the parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS,

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). 

In addition, plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements necessary to grant a TRO. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (stating that a TRO may be granted without notice to the adverse

party or that party's attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by

affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage

will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (2) the

movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it

should not be required). Accordingly, plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and a

TRO are DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

1. Defendant Estate of Cecil Dunn is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

2. Defendant Lake County Department of Social Services is DISMISSED with

leave to amend. Should plaintiff wish to amend his complaint, the amended complaint must

be filed within twenty-eight days of the filing date of this order and must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original

complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within the designated time

will result in the court proceeding only with defendants Pat Cichowicz and James Grogg .

3. The clerk of the court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the

complaint and all attachments thereto, a magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form, and a

copy of this order to case workers Pat Cichowicz and James Grogg at the Lake County

Department of Social Services, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA 95453.. The clerk

of the court shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this order to the

Lake County District Attorney’s Office. Additionally, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order

to plaintiff.

4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and

complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked

by the court, on behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will

be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to

sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, defendants will be required to serve

and file an answer within sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was

sent to them. Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the bottom of the

waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver

of service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but

before defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days

from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

5. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

a. No later than sixty days from the date the waivers are sent from the court,

defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The

motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all

respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and

incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that

this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to

the date their summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

promptly served on plaintiff.

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

n.4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). At that

time, defendants shall also submit the magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form.

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court

and served upon defendants no later than twenty-eight days from the date the motion was

served upon him. 

d. Defendants shall file their reply brief no later than fourteen days after the

opposition is served upon them. 

e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

6. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants,

or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

8. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February , 2015. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.14\Hard4610.serve.wpd

13

Case 3:14-cv-04610-VC Document 9 Filed 02/13/15 Page 6 of 6