Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00231-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ANTHONY GREENE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FREDRICK HAYWARD, )

ALBERTSON INCORPORATED, Store )

#6323, a division of ALBERTSON, INC., )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

1:06-cv-00231 OWW TAG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

FORWARD SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

FORWARD ANY SERVICE DOCUMENTS

SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF TO THE

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

ORDER DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES

MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE THE

COMPLAINT UPON RECEIPT OF

SUFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE SERVICE

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff Charles Anthony Greene (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with a civil action

against defendants Fredrick Hayward and Albertsons Inc. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on November 19, 2004, while soliciting for charity in

front of an Albertsons Supermarket in Bakersfield, California, he was subjected to an unlawful

citizen’s arrest by defendant Fredrick Hayward, an Albertsons store manager. Plaintiff asserts

that this citizen’s arrest violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendant Hayward caused the

Bakersfield Police Department to take plaintiff into custody. Plaintiff also asserts that

defendants’ conduct was discriminatory and caused him emotional distress. In addition, plaintiff

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 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

27

28

2

claims that defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth

Amendment rights to equal protection and equal rights under the law. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has

moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) 

The Court finds that plaintiff’s “Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and

Affidavit,” wherein he reports that he is homeless and has neither income nor assets, satisfies the

indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and that plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of

commencing this action. See Calhoun v. Health & Human Services, 844 F. Supp. 1338, 1339

(E.D. Wisc. 1994)($316 per month of assistance benefits and food stamps satisfies 28 U.S.C.

§ 915(a)).

Having concluded that plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis under section

1915(a)(1), this Court must still “screen” plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),

which requires the dismissal of a case at any time if the court determines that it (1) “is frivolous

or malicious,” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3) “seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii) and (iii). 

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on

an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. The

test for malice is a subjective one that requires the Court to determine whether the applicant is

proceeding in good faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see

Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is most

commonly found in repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free

filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be inferred to be malicious if it suggests an

intent to vex the defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims decided in prior

cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or

contains disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains untrue material allegations of

fact or false statements made with knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v.

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 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

27

28

1

 If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted to the

extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the

allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984)(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim

is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that an

opportunity to amend would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

3

Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

Here, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants caused him to be falsely

arrested on November 19, 2004, that this violated his civil rights, and that he suffered certain

damages as a consequence, including emotional distress.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis

v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998). In reviewing a complaint

under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se

pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).1

Here, the Court notes that private persons (such as defendants herein) may be held liable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they jointly engage with state officials to violate civil rights. 

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980)(“Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in

the challenged action, are acting ‘under color’ of law for purposes of § 1983 actions”); Anderson

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 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

27

28

4

v. Janovich, 543 F. Supp. 1124, 1132 (W.D. Wa. 1982)(“Private persons who jointly engage with

state officials in conduct that violates section 1983 act ‘under color’ of law for purposes of

section 1983"). This rule of law has been applied in the context of a false arrest claim. E.g.,

Coakley v. Jaffee, 49 F. Supp. 2d 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Inasmuch as this is essentially what

plaintiff has alleged - that an Albertsons’ store manager wrongfully caused plaintiff to be taken

into custody by Bakersfield police in violation of his civil rights - the Court finds that plaintiff

has stated cognizable claims against defendants Fredrick Hayward (an Albertsons store manager)

and against Albertsons itself.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that

I. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis IS GRANTED.

II. Service of the Complaint

A. Directions to the Clerk and to Plaintiff

Service is appropriate only for the following defendants named in the complaint: (1)

Fredrick Hawyard and (2) Albertsons Inc. Accordingly, 

1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a USM-285 form and a summons for each

of the following named defendants only: (1) Fredrick Hayward and (2) Albertsons Inc., along

with an instruction sheet, a notice of submission of documents, and a copy of the complaint filed

in this Court. 

2) Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with

the following documents:

a. Completed summonses;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each of the following named defendants

only: Fredrick Hayward and Albertsons Inc.; and 

c. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed in this Court. 

Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 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

27

28

5

Upon receipt of the documents described above, the Clerk of the Court SHALL

FORWARD them to the United States Marshals Service to serve (1) Fredrick Hayward and

(2) Albertsons Inc. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 without payment of costs.

B. Directions to the United States Marshals Service

It is ORDERED that when sufficient and appropriate service documents are submitted to

 the Court and forwarded to the United States Marshals Service, the United States Marshal

SHALL SERVE the complaint.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to

dismiss this action and/or the defendants named therein for failure to obey this Court’s

order. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00231-OWW -TAG Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 Page 5 of 5