Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05380/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VAN SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-05380-JSW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE 

Re: Docket No. 3 

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff, Van Smith (“Mr. Smith”)1filed a Complaint and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, 

the Court DENIES Mr. Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and it DISMISSES the 

Complaint, with prejudice.

BACKGROUND 

Although not model of clarity, the instant dispute appears to arise out of an action that was 

pending in the Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, Smith 

v. Alameda County, No. RG13689329 (the “State court litigation”). (See Docket No. 1, Complaint 

at p. 4.)2

 The State court litigation, in turn, appears to have been one of several unsuccessful 

lawsuits that Mr. Smith filed in an effort to challenge a foreclosure proceeding. (See, e.g., id. at 

ECF pp. 15, 29-32, 35-47.) 

In this case, Mr. Smith alleges that, in the State court litigation, defendant Matthew 

Yankee filed a false declaration on behalf of Alameda County. In that declaration, Mr. Yankee 

 

1

 In the caption, Mr. Smith identifies himself as “Van Smith as Administrator Jerlyn L. 

Smith Trust.” 

2

 All page citations to the Complaint are based on the ECF page numbering. 

Case 4:15-cv-05380-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

attested that a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, attached to a request for judicial notice, was recorded 

with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder and that the document existed “exactly as submitted by 

the County in the Clerk-Recorder’s files.” (Id. at ECF p. 33-34.) According to Mr. Smith, that 

statement was false, because the Trustee’s Deed of Sale was not an “official document” that could 

be used as evidence to support dismissal of the State court litigation. (See id. at ECF p. 4-7.) Mr. 

Smith also alleges that he was denied a fair trial, because he is black. (Id. at ECF at p. 5.) 

Mr. Smith does not clearly specify the nature of his claims, but in his demand for relief, he 

asks for “quiet title” and damages. He also asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over this action, 

because it involves a federal question, and he cites to 18 U.S.C. section 1021 and the Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Id. at ECF p. 2.) 

ANALYSIS 

A district court may deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action under 

certain circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or 

when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Mr. Smith alleges that jurisdiction is premised, in part, on alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 

section 1021. However, that statute is a criminal statute, which does not provide for a private right 

of action. See, e.g., Murphy v. Bank of New York Mellon, 14-CV-02030-JST, 2014 WL 4222188, 

at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2014). 

Mr. Smith also alleges that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. 

section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for claims alleging violations of federal constitutional 

rights. Bank of Lake Tahoe v. Bank of America, 318 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2003); Azul-Pacifico, 

Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Plaintiff has no cause of action 

directly under the United States Constitution.”). Because Mr. Smith filed his Complaint pro se, 

the Court will construe his Complaint to assert claims directly under Section 1983 for the alleged 

constitutional violations. 

To the extent Mr. Smith alleges he was denied a fair trial based on his race, his allegations 

are conclusory and are insufficient to state a claim for relief under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

Case 4:15-cv-05380-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

To the extent that Mr. Smith advances a theory that Alameda County is liable based on Mr. 

Yankee’s actions, a municipality cannot be found liable under Section 1983 on a respondeat 

superior theory. See Monell v. N.Y. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Municipal 

liability can be imposed only for injuries inflicted pursuant to an official governmental policy or 

custom. Id. at 690-94. A county can be found liable when execution of a county policy, whether 

made by its lawmakers or those whose acts can be said to represent official policy or custom of the 

county, inflicts the injury. Id. at 694. While a single decision may satisfy Monell’s municipal 

policy requirement, that decision must have been made by one of the municipality’s authorized 

decisionmakers, i.e. by an official who “possesses final authority to establish municipal policy 

with respect to the challenged action.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-81 

(1986). 

Thus, to hold a local government liable for an official’s conduct, a plaintiff must first 

establish that the official (1) had final policymaking authority concerning the action alleged to 

have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue and (2) was the policymaker 

for the local governing body for purposes of the particular act. McMillian v. Monroe County 

Alabama, 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). Mr. Smith’s Complaint is devoid of any facts that would 

support a basis to hold Alameda County liable for Mr. Yankee’s actions under a Monell theory of 

liability. 

Finally, although Mr. Smith asserts that Mr. Yankee filed a false declaration in the State 

court litigation, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief on that basis. 

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it 

asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. ... When a complaint 

pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line 

between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

For each of these reasons, the Court concludes that Mr. Smith fails to state a claim for 

relief. The Court recognizes that, in general, leave to amend should be freely granted. However, 

Case 4:15-cv-05380-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

bas

Co

DIS

the

Da

sed on the m

mplaint, the

Accord

SMISSES, W

e Clerk shall 

IT IS S

ated: Decemb

materials rela

e Court concl

dingly, the C

WITH PREJ

close the fil

SO ORDER

ber 2, 2015 

ting to the S

ludes that it 

ourt DENIE

JUDICE, the

le. 

RED. 

4

State court lit

would be fu

ES the applic

e Complaint. 

tigation, whi

utile to grant 

cation to proc

 The Court 

__

JE

Un

ich Mr. Smit

Mr. Smith l

ceed in form

shall issue a

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

th has attach

leave to ame

ma pauperis, 

a separate ju

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

hed to the 

end. 

and 

dgment, and

____ 

ge 

d

Case 4:15-cv-05380-JSW Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 4