Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-00201 JF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(JFEX1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN R. BEAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-00201 JF

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[re: docket no. 6]

Defendant County of Monterey Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) moves to

dismiss Plaintiff John R. Bean’s (“Bean”) pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Bean did not oppose

the motion, but instead filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2006. The amended complaint

was not served. The Court heard oral argument on June 2, 2006. For the reason set forth below,

the Court will grant the motion with leave to amend.

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

I. BACKGROUND

Bean filed the instant complaint on January 11, 2006, demanding $500,000 as

compensation for alleged physical and mental abuse and loss of personal belongings. Bean also

seeks a judgment that would provide him with medical treatment and counseling for the alleged

defamation and abuse that he suffered as a result of conduct by Sheriff’s deputies, prison guards,

and other County employees. 

Because Bean is proceeding pro se, his claims understandably are not set forth with the

clarity one would expect from an attorney. Bean alleges that he was violently harassed and

subsequently arrested by Deputy M. Shapiro and Deputy J. Villasenor, both of the Sheriff’s

Department. He was taken from his home in Carmel Valley, California and placed into custody

at the Monterey County Jail. Bean alleges that Deputy Shapiro doctored the facts and

circumstances of the arrest that took place at Bean’s home, and that the Sheriff’s Department

reported the alleged falsified facts to the community newspaper, the Monterey County Herald,

which published the alleged falsified facts. Bean claims that he was defamed by the publication

of said facts. 

Bean also alleges that he was forced to undergo expensive psychological evaluations.

However, he acknowledges that this expense fell on the Monterey County taxpayers. Bean also

claims that he endured four months of “hardship, psychological torture, and unnecessary

psychological evaluations” before the criminal charges against him were dismissed on August

24, 2004. Bean alleges that, as a result of his experience in the Monterey County legal system, he

suffered unnecessary mental and physical abuse, the acquisition of a criminal record, unnecessary

emotional and financial stress associated with the costs of a bail bond, and the loss of personal

belongings. 

The Sheriff’s Department moves to dismiss Bean’s complaint with prejudice on four

grounds: (A) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Bean has failed to raise any

question of federal law; (B) Bean fails to allege that he was deprived of a cognizable interest; (C)

Bean has failed to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act; (D) the Sheriff’s

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

Department is immune from suit. 

In response to the motion to dismiss, Bean filed an amended complaint. However, he did

not serve the amended complaint because he believed that the Court would serve it based on his

in forma pauperis status. The amended complaint is almost identical to the original complaint,

although Bean has added a list of seven cases and six claims for relief: (1) false arrest, (2) false

imprisonment, (3) misprision, (4) color and title, (5) civil rights violated and (6) defamation. His

original complaint does not identify any particular claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King &

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); see also Argabright v. United States, 35 F.3d 472, 474 (9th

Cir. 1994). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, and

the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969 ); Argabright, 35 F.3d at 474. The pleading of a pro se

litigant is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to be

afforded the benefit of any doubt. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi v.

Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Sheriff’s Department moves to dismiss Bean’s claims with prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Because Bean’s amended complaint has not

been served, the motion to dismiss the original complaint is properly before the Court. 

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

The Court will rule on the original complaint and the Sheriff’s Department’s motion to

dismiss, while taking notice of the amended complaint in order to provide guidance to Bean in

connection with any future effort to amend. 

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Sheriff’s Department argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

because Bean has not stated any claims arising out of the Constitution, federal law or United

States treaties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Sheriff’s Department points out that the only claim

referred to in the original complaint is a state law claim for defamation.

Subject matter jurisdiction gives a court power to hear the case and must exist at

commencement of the action. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be

decided before other motions, because the other motions will become moot if subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking. Id. The presumption is that there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction so

that the party asserting federal court jurisdiction must prove its existence. Thompson v.

McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

Bean’s complaint contains the following allegations: “Deputy Shapiro . . . doctored the

facts of [Bean’s] arrest incident and prepared a falsified police report” and the “Sheriff’s

Department reported the falsified facts to the Monterey County THE HERALD.” Original

Complaint 2:10-18. Based on these allegations, it appears that Bean is attempting to allege a

claim of defamation, which is a state law claim. The Sheriff’s Department is an extension of the

state rather than of the federal government, as Bean appears to claim in the complaint. Although

Bean’s unserved amended complaint identifies at least one possible federal claim, a civil rights

violation, simply listing a claim is not enough to meet the pleading standards of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a). See infra p. 5. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the original complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave to amend. Should Bean amend his complaint in

order to allege a claim under federal law, he must do more than simply state that he is suing for a

civil rights violation, but rather he must allege specific facts giving rise to such a claim. 

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 4 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted

The Sheriff’s Department argues that even if a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

could be inferred from Bean’s allegations, Bean has not asserted that the Sheriff’s Department

violated his constitutional rights. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This statement must

give the defendant notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. As noted

above, Bean does not clearly identify any particular claims in his original complaint. While the

unserved amended complaint lists claims for “false arrest, false imprisonment, misprision, color

and title, civil rights violated and defamation,” these claims are not accompanied by a short and

plain statement that informs the Sheriff’s Department of the grounds upon which Bean asserts the

claims. Moreover, to hold the Sheriff’s Department liable for any § 1983 claims, Bean must

allege that the actions leading to the claim were part of the Department’s policy or custom.

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691 (1978). 

C. California Tort Claims Act

The Sheriff’s Department argues that Bean’s state law defamation claim does not comply

with the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 900 et seq. California

Government Code § 911.2(a) provides that claims against public entities and public employees 

for injury to person or to personal property . . . shall be presented . . . not later

than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any

other cause of action shall be presented . . . not later than one year after the

accrual of the cause of action.

Bean filed his original complaint on January 11, 2006. The events giving rise to Bean’s claims

culminated at least 16 months before the filing. Any amended complaint asserting defamation or

any other state law claim must address this deficiency. 

D. Immunity

The Sheriff’s Department argues that it is immune from liability for Bean’s state law

claim under California Government Code § 821.6, which applies to public employees acting

within the scope of their employment, “even if [they] act maliciously and without probable

cause.” The protections of this statute extend to include police officers. Johnson v. City of

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

Pacifica, 4 Cal. App. 3d 82, 84-85 (1970). Consequentially, immunity for the police officers

results in immunity for the Sheriff’s Department. Id.; Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2. Accordingly, in

any amended pleading, Bean must allege facts which would support a conclusion that the

immunity does not apply.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint shall be filed and served

within (30) days after service of this order.

DATED: June 6, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 6 of 7
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

2On May 1, 2006, the Court granted Bean’s motion for designation of the case as an Efiling case. Because Bean has not yet registered as an E-filer or provided his email address, the

Court has served the parties with hard copies of the order.

7

Case No. C 06-00201 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:2

Traci A. Kirkbride

Office of County Counsel

County of Monterey

168 W. Alisal St. 3rd Floor

Salinas, CA 93901-2680 

John Bean

Post Office Box 1642

Carmel Valley, CA 93924-1642

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 26 Filed 06/07/06 Page 7 of 7