Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02080-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO IVAN ARRIAGA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAWEAH DELTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02080-LJO-SAB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff Ricardo Ivan Arriaga Sanchez filed the complaint in this 

action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state 

any cognizable claims and the Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend.

I.

SCREENING

District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to 

at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 

(9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint 

must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 

Case 1:14-cv-02080-KJM-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

2

‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ 

a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 

entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must 

accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s 

legal conclusions as true. Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555).

II.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint appears to name Kaweah Delta Behavioral Health, the Fresno Police 

Department, Fresno City College, “Visalia Local or State Court,” American Ambulance, and 

Tulare County Social Workers as defendants (“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s complaint contains little 

to no factual allegations explaining what these entities did or how they caused Plaintiff injury. 

Plaintiff two page, handwritten statement merely states that:

To Whom It May Concern:

The purpose of this letter is to file a criminal suit for or againts[sic] 

Community Behavioral Hospital (all facilities), Kaweah Delta 

Behavioral Health, Fresno Police Department of Fresno, (all units) 

Fresno City College, and Visalia Local or State Court for personal 

injury, intending or attempting to put in risk my life (intento de 

homicidio). As the holder of U status, it is without a doubt a 

crime, including all familiar relatives from this. I would like to 

include American Ambulance all units, heavily[sic] attempting 

several times. I would like or should mention Tulare County social 

workers, from Visalia, CA, ought to be on this suit.

(Compl., at pp. 2-3.)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-02080-KJM-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

3

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable claims against the entities named as 

defendants in this action. Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any legal causes of action and 

does not allege any facts to support any cognizable cause of action. Plaintiff’s complaint does 

not identify any injury suffered by Plaintiff and does not explain what Defendants did to cause 

that injury.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint purports to bring criminal charges against Defendants. 

Whether to prosecute and what criminal charges to file or bring are decisions that generally rest 

in the discretion of the prosecutor, not the court. United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 

(1979). Nor do criminal statutes generally provide a private cause of action or a basis for civil 

liability. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, if 

Defendants have violated a criminal statute, it is generally up to the prosecutor to bring charges 

against Defendants. Plaintiff cannot initiate a criminal proceeding against Defendants.

The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend freely given 

with extreme liberality when justice so requires). If Plaintiff opts to amend his complaint, his 

amended complaint must identify the legal theories or causes of action which Plaintiff is suing 

under and must allege facts which demonstrate how Defendants are civilly liable under those 

causes of action.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any 

cognizable claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED, with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, if any, shall be filed within thirty (30) days of 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-02080-KJM-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 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

4

the date of service of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within thirty (30) days, this 

action will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02080-KJM-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 Page 4 of 4