Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03355/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03355-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES-ERIC WOFFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DANE R. HAYWARD DBA, in his official

and private capacity, S. CURTIS, in his official

and private capacity, MARK BARNES, in his

official and private capacity, and LAKE

COUNTY aka THE COUNTY OF LAKE,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03355 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this civil-rights action alleging various constitutional violations, defendants now

move to dismiss the complaint. Because this order finds that plaintiff’s claims are wholly

without merit, these motions are GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff James-Eric Wofford, acting pro se, filed his complaint on August 17, 2005. 

The facts are difficult to discern from his rambling narrative. Mr. Wofford accuses three

California Highway Patrol officers of wrongfully arresting him and charging him with various

violations of the California Vehicle Code (“CVC”). Lake County is also named as a defendant. 

In short, Mr. Wofford argues that those charges were “without force and effect” on him because

the CVC, including §§ 14601.1, 14601.5(a) and 2800.2(a), only applies to commercial drivers. 

In support of this theory, he cites various definitions. These include 18 U.S.C. § 31, applicable

to penalties for the destruction of aircraft and motor vehicles, and CVC § 15210, applicable to

Chapter 7 of the CVC — i.e., the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program (Compl. at 2–4).

Case 3:05-cv-03355-WHA Document 23 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Mr. Wofford specifically alleges that the three California Highway Patrol officers

arrested him when they had no probable cause to believe that the CVC would apply to him

because there was “no valid evidence or good information that [he was] transporting persons or

property for hire” (id. at 6). The Lake County Superior Court and the District Attorney are

accused of misapplying the CVC to him and failing to file a verified complaint or a bill of

particulars (id. at 6–8, 26). He further alleges that he was arrested as a result of a conspiracy

between the officers and his friend Kenny Kirkbright, with whom he had a dispute over a

pickup truck (id. at 9–10, 13). Mr. Wofford also claims that the first time he was charged with

driving under the influence, he was denied a blood test when he failed to urinate and the second

time, defendants tampered with his urine sample; these allegedly wrongful DUI charges resulted

in the suspension of his driver’s license (id. at 11–13). Finally, he alleges that his truck was

wrongfully towed when his friend Lisa Jorgenson was driving it with an expired driver’s license

(id. at 14).

There are five pending criminal cases against Mr. Wofford in Lake County Superior

Court. Case numbers CR904269, CR034377, CR035994 and LP31096.01 have been

consolidated and continue to trail CR902434 (RJN Exh. B). Among other crimes, he was

accused of violating the following sections of the CVC: § 23152(a) (driving under the influence

of a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine) on March 31, 2002; §§ 14601.5(a)

(knowingly driving without a license) and 22350 (speeding) on May 7, 2003; §§ 23152(a) and

27315(d)(1) (driving without a seatbelt) on August 27, 2003; §§ 2800.2(a)(driving with willful

or wanton disregard for safety or persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police

officer) and 14601.5(a) on September 5, 2004.

Mr. Wofford alleges various violations of his constitutional rights in support of his

claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. Specifically, the complaint accuses

defendants of (1) misapplying the CVC to non-commercial entities in violation of the equal

protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment; (2) refusing to file a bill of

particulars in the pending criminal actions in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments;

(3) confiscating personal property (i.e., towing his truck) without a trial by jury in violation of

Case 3:05-cv-03355-WHA Document 23 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 4
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

the 7th Amendment; (4) arresting him without probable cause in violation of the 4th

Amendment because he was not a commercial driver transporting persons or property for hire;

(5) failing to file a verified complaint in violation of the 4th Amendment; (6) violating his right

to travel under the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments; (7) arresting him and subjecting him to false

imprisonment for violations of the CVC which did not apply to him; and (8) violating federal

law as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 31 by not defining “motor vehicles” as those used for

commercial purposes (Compl. at 16–41). Mr. Wofford seeks damages in the amount of $1.2

million for false imprisonment, $105,000 in lost income (for three years of being unable to use

an automobile in his chosen profession as an antiques dealer) and $10,000 in punitive damages

(id. at 41–42).

Defendant Lake County filed its motion to dismiss on September 8, 2005. The three

California Highway Patrol officers filed a separate motion to dismiss. Because Mr. Wofford

initially failed to file timely opposition briefs to these two motions, the hearing was rescheduled

to allow him an opportunity to do so.

ANALYSIS

On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the factual

allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1996). The court

need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial

notice or by exhibit. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor is the

court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions

of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Ibid.

Complaints of plaintiffs appearing pro se are judged by a less stringent standard than

pleadings drafted by attorneys. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 1988). If,

however, “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by

amendment,” leave to amend need not be granted. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

1995). Moreover, “where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly

appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where

Case 3:05-cv-03355-WHA Document 23 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 4
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

such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946).

As stated on the record, a federal court is without jurisdiction to intervene in pending

state court criminal proceedings. To the extent that Mr. Wofford is attempting to stop the

prosecution of the five criminal cases listed above, the Court must abstain from hearing such

claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

In any event, the overarching theme of plaintiff’s complaint is that he is exempt from

criminal prosecution because the CVC only applies to commercial drivers. This theory, based

on selective citations of irrelevant definitions from the CVC and the United States Code, is

completely devoid of merit. This order finds that the alleged constitutional violations — all

based on this flawed argument that the CVC does not apply to plaintiff — are wholly

insubstantial and frivolous. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the complaint

must be DISMISSED. FRCP 12(h)(3).

Even if this order were to reach the merits and accept all the factual allegations as true,

Mr. Wofford’s complaint fails to set forth any cognizable legal theory. All of the alleged

“constitutional violations” revolve around his argument, rejected above, that the CVC only

applies to commercial drivers. There is no constitutional right to drive, much less a “clearly

established” right that defendants’ interference with would give rise to liability under 42 U.S.C.

1983. The same argument has already been rejected by the Northern District of California. See

Mohammed El v. Opdyke, 2004 WL 1465692 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23 2004).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Judgment will

be entered accordingly. In light of this order, defendants’ request to continue their case

management deadlines is RENDERED MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03355-WHA Document 23 Filed 11/10/05 Page 4 of 4