Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00874/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00874-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C. WALLACE COPPOCK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUSSELL GREEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00874-JSC 

SECTION 1915 INITIAL

SCREENING OF COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Jeremy Shepard, Sheena Shepard, and Charles Wallace Coppock (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 

sue Russell Green, Betty Jean Green, and Daniele Maraviglia (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking 

declaratory relief for alleged violations under the United States Constitution and a temporary 

restraining order prohibiting Defendants from prosecuting an Unlawful Detainer action in The 

Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma. (Dkt. Nos. 1 & 4-1.)1 Having granted Plaintiffs’ 

applications to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 6), the Court now screens the complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes that it is deficient for the reasons stated below. 

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The complaint does not contain a plain statement of facts and allegations. Plaintiffs were 

tenants of a rental property located at “8773 Highway 128 (Caretaker Cottage) Healdsburg, 

California 95448.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) The gravamen of the complaint is that Defendants “have 

themselves,” or directed “Healdsburg police or others” to enter Plaintiffs’ “rental premises to 

destroy plaintiff’s [sic] property,” and “discourage Jeremy Shepard from exercising his 

Constitutional Rights.” (Id. at 7.)

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs allege violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution related to the alleged incidents. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that 

Defendants violated their right to privacy under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs seek the 

following: (1) declarations that each Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and that 

each Defendant is engaged in a conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; and (2) a 

temporary restraining order “restraining each named defendant from, among other things,” further 

prosecuting their Unlawful Detainer action in state court. (Id. at 4-6.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in 

forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Thus, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not 

a “probability requirement” but mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels 

and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

When a plaintiff files a complaint without being represented by an attorney, the court must 

“construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. 

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon 

dismissal, self-represented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “to 

amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not 

be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. (Dkt. 

No. 1 at 2.) There is a threshold issue with Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, however, because 

Plaintiffs assert those claims against three private citizens—i.e., persons who are not government 

or state actors. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights 

“may lie against a private party who is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its 

agents.” DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, “[i]ndividuals 

bringing actions against private parties for infringement of their constitutional rights . . . must 

show that the private parties’ infringement somehow constitutes state action.” George v. Pac.-

CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The 

presumption is that a private actor’s conduct is not state action. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon 

Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants are government actors, nor do Plaintiffs 

allege that Defendants’ conduct otherwise constituted state action. The complaint’s lone reference 

to the “Healdsburg Police and others” is insufficient to ground the claims in state action because 

there are no allegations that the named defendants are state actors. See Chun v. Rodman, No. 18-

00177 DKW-KSC, 2018 WL 4345252, at *2. (D. Haw. Sep. 11, 2018) (finding that plaintiff failed 

to sufficiently plead state action where he alleged that “his family members violated his federal 

civil rights by obtaining a TRO in family court and then by misleading Honolulu Police 

Department officers into carrying out his eviction.”). 

A plaintiff may satisfy the “joint action” requirement by sufficiently pleading a conspiracy

with government actors. Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, 

however, there is no allegation of a conspiracy between the Healdsburg police and Defendants that 

gives rise to a plausible inference of state action. The complaint instead alleges that “each named

defendant is presently engaged in a conspiracy to violate each of the [Plaintiffs’] . . . alleged 

Constitutional Rights.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2 (emphasis added).) Further, even construing the 

allegation that “defendants . . . and the appointed agents conspired to . . . violate[ ]” Plaintiffs’ 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

constitutional rights as an allegation of conspiracy between Defendants and Healdsburg police, the

barebones allegation is insufficient to survive dismissal. See Constable v. California, No. 1:07-cv995-OWW-SMS, 2007 WL 4404435, *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007) (finding complaint frivolous 

under Section 1915 review because “a bare allegation that defendants conspired to violate 

plaintiff's constitutional rights will not suffice to give rise to a conspiracy claim under section 

1983”); Hiramanek v. Clark, No. C-13-0228 EMC, 2013 WL 12308479, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 

2013) (dismissing 1983 claim on Section 1915 review because an allegation that a private party 

“conspired with the state court judges and employees to make adverse rulings against her” were 

either conclusory or speculative and thus failed to satisfy the pleading requirements under 

Twombly and Iqbal). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are similarly insufficient to give rise to a plausible inference that 

Defendants were willful participants in joint action with the Healdsburg Police. See United 

Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Private parties 

act under color of state law if they willfully participate in joint action with state officials to deprive 

others of constitutional rights.”). The complaint alleges that “[e]ach named defendant, 

individually and collectively has violated each of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (Dkt. No. 1 

at 2 (emphasis added).) The complaint contains a single reference to the Healdsburg Police, which 

states, in its entirety:

The defendants have themselves, or, at their direction caused 

individuals, Healdsburg Police and others, to, without the plaintiff’s 

consent to come upon Plaintiff’s rental premises to destroy plaintiff’s 

private property, discourage Jeremy Shepard from exercising his 

Constitutional Rights and as declared to, achieved other wrongful 

means and objectives which further accomplished their wrongful 

means of violating each named Plaintiff’s Particularized 

Constitutional Rights. 

(Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) Absent factual support, however, that allegation constitutes a barebones 

statement insufficient to demonstrate police involvement such that Defendants were acting under 

color of state law. See DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] bare 

allegation of [ ] joint action will not overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege facts 

tending to show . . . [acts] under color of state law or authority.”) (internal quotation marks and 

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

citation omitted). 

In the absence of factual allegations demonstrating that Plaintiffs may properly assert 

constitutional claims against Defendants, the complaint fails. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ complaint fails section 1915 review. Plaintiffs 

may file an amended complaint by May 3, 2019; Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must include 

factual allegations in support of their claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 17), is 

denied as moot and the hearing on that motion scheduled for May 16, 2019 is vacated. The denial 

of Defendants’ motion is without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiffs survive section 1915 review 

following amendment, if any, of their complaint. 

The Court encourages Plaintiffs to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal 

Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Plaintiffs can make an appointment in person or by calling (415)792-8982. 

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 1 & 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C. WALLACE COPPOCK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUSSELL GREEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00874-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 19, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

C. Wallace Coppock

Jeremy Shepard

Sheena Shepard

1014 Hopper Avenue #425

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

Dated: April 19, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:19-cv-00874-SI Document 25 Filed 04/19/19 Page 6 of 6