Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00201-2/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 order is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 11/27/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN R. BEAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

M. SHAPIRO, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-201 (RS)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND

VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND 

[re: doc. no. 47]

Defendants M. Shapiro (“Shapiro”) and J. Villasenor (“Villasenor”) move to dismiss the

second amended complaint of Plaintiff John Bean (“Bean”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed the papers filed by the parties

as well as the oral arguments presented at the hearing on November 17, 2006. For the reasons

discussed below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Bean’s arrest for elder abuse against his mother, Ruth Bean, in

violation of California Penal Code § 368. Bean, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this

action on January 11, 2006, alleging untitled claims against the County of Monterey and the

Monterey Sheriff’s Department. In essence, Bean alleged that Monterey Sheriff’s Deputies

Shapiro and Villasenor wrongfully arrested him for elder abuse even though he explained to them

that the apparent bruising on his mother was the result of a prescription medication called

“Coumadin.” Bean alleged that Shapiro falsified the police report, stating that Bean had a knife

when the deputies confronted him at his home, when in fact Bean did not have a knife. Bean

alleged that as a result of the arrest he was held in custody with actual criminals and predators,

that he lost personal belongings with actual and sentimental value, and that he and his family

suffered emotional and financial stress.

The Court dismissed Bean’s complaint with leave to amend on June 7, 2006 after

concluding that Bean had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable federal claim and

had failed to allege any claim upon which relief could be granted. At the time the Court issued

its order, Bean already had filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), although that pleading had

not been served. The Court nonetheless addressed the FAC during oral argument on the motion

to dismiss the original complaint, and in its order of June 7, 2006. The Court stated at the

hearing that the FAC did not remedy the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint, and that

Bean should not serve the FAC but rather should file a new amended pleading after receiving the

Court’s June 7 order. Bean nonetheless served the FAC on the Sheriff’s Department, which

subsequently moved to dismiss the FAC. On August 2, 2006, the Court struck the FAC as

inconsistent with the June 7 order and vacated the hearing date on the Sheriff’s Department’s

motion to dismiss. However, the Court granted Bean yet another opportunity to file an amended

pleading addressing the pleading deficiencies noted in the June 7 order.

Bean filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) on August 21, 2006. The

SAC names as defendants Shapiro, Villasenor and Jayne Speizer of the Monterey County Herald

newspaper. The SAC asserts six claims: (1) false arrest; (2) false imprisonment; (3) misprision;

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

(4) “Color and Title”; (5) violation of civil rights; and (6) defamation.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

“A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air For Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, the moving party asserts that the

allegations in the complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. In a

factual attack, the moving party disputes the truth of the allegations in the complaint, which

otherwise would be sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. In resolving a facial attack, the

Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true. Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177,

1179 (9th Cir. 2005). In resolving a factual attack, the Court need not presume the truthfulness

of the allegations set forth in the complaint and may consider evidence beyond the face of the

complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.;

Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. Once the moving party has presented affidavits or other evidence

tending to show that subject matter jurisdiction does not lie, the plaintiff must present affidavits

or other evidence sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. 

“[J]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question jurisdiction are

exceptional.” Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Dismissal usually is inappropriate when the question of jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits

of the action, for example, when “a statute provides the basis for both the subject matter

jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for relief.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Under these circumstances, a motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate only if the allegations set forth in the complaint are

frivolous. Id. at 1040. 

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

“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). 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

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 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

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

1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes that pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rules

Bean’s opposition to the motion was due on October 27, 2006, but was not filed until November

14, 2006. Shapiro and Villasenor filed a reply on November 15, requesting that the opposition be

stricken as untimely. In light of Bean’s pro se status, the Court will exercise its discretion to

consider the late-filed opposition.

Most of the claims alleged in the SAC are state law claims. The only two claims that

arguably are asserted under federal law are the fourth claim for “Color and Title” and the fifth

claim for violation of civil rights. The fourth claim alleges that Shapiro “doctored the facts of the

plaintiff’s arrest incident and prepared a falsified police report,” and the fifth claim alleges that

Bean was subjected to hardship and psychological torture prior to the ultimate dismissal of the

criminal case against him, and that he now has a criminal record. With respect to the latter

allegations, Bean provides no facts regarding the alleged hardship and psychological torture he

suffered and, most importantly, gives no indication if or how Shapiro and Villasenor were

involved in the infliction of such hardship and torture. While the allegations of the fourth claim

are more specific, stating that Shapiro “doctored” the police report, Bean provides no details

regarding the alleged “doctoring” – that is, he does not state what facts were improperly included

or omitted from the police report and how the inclusion or omission of such facts violated his

civil rights. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Bean has failed to allege a cognizable federal

claim against Shapiro or Villasenor, and thus has failed to allege a basis for subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court.

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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

2

 Given the Court’s conclusions that Bean has failed to state a cognizable federal claim

and that his state law claims are barred for failure to complaint with the California Tort Claims

Act, the Court need not reach Defendants’ additional arguments in support of their motion to

dismiss.

5

Case No. C 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

Because the Court concludes that Bean has failed to allege a cognizable federal claim, the

Court need not address Bean’s state law claims. The Court notes, however, that at least some of

the state law claims appear to fall within California’s Tort Claims Act, California Government

Code §§ 810 et seq. Under that statute, a plaintiff may not maintain an action for damages

against a public entity unless a written claim first is presented to the public entity in a timely

fashion. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4. Likewise, a plaintiff may not maintain an action for

damages against a public employee unless a written claim first is presented to the public entity

that employs the public employee. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 950.2, 950.6. A claim based upon a

personal injury cause of action must be presented within six months after accrual of the cause of

action. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 911.2. Bean does not allege that he has complied with this claims

presentation requirement. Accordingly, it appears that his state law claims are barred.2

The Court is aware that Bean is proceeding pro se, and that he understandably cannot

allege his claims with the clarity that one would expect from an attorney. However, the Court

cannot allow this action to go forward unless Bean is able to allege facts sufficient to

demonstrate the existence of a cognizable federal claim. While this is Bean’s third attempt at

pleading a cognizable federal claim, this is the first time the Court has evaluated his claims

against Defendants Shapiro and Villasenor. Given that fact, and Bean’s pro se status, the Court

will grant Bean one final opportunity to attempt to allege a viable federal claim. The Court

repeats its advice to Bean at the hearing that Bean consult with an attorney for assistance in

presenting his claims properly. However, in light of the history of this case and the continuing

expense this action is causing to Defendants and their counsel, the Court has reached the limit of

its patience. If Bean is unable to cure the defects noted herein, the Court will dismiss his claims

against Shapiro and Villasenor without leave to amend.

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

IV. ORDER

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any

amended pleading shall be filed and served on or before December 29, 2006. The parties shall

appear for a Case Management Conference on February 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED: 11/27/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 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

7

Case No. C 06-201 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SHAPIRO AND VILLASENOR WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

John Richard Bean WilsonrreR@aim.com

Traci A. Kirkbride kirkbrideta@co.monterey.ca.us, edwards-jamesg@co.monterey.ca.us;

zazuetac@co.monterey.ca.us

Case 5:06-cv-00201-JF Document 55 Filed 11/27/06 Page 7 of 7