Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01570/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01570-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEANNA RAE PORTER-HEFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-01570-VKD 

ORDER FOR REASSIGMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Presently before the Court is plaintiff Deanna Rae Porter-Heft’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action IFP if the 

court is satisfied that the would-be litigant cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the 

action. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). Ms. Porter-Heft’s application indicates that her assets and income 

are insufficient to enable her to pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. Accordingly, her application is 

granted.

However, the Court’s grant of the IFP application does not mean that Ms. Porter-Heft may 

proceed with this action here. A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing 

fee whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

In her complaint, Ms. Porter-Heft seeks $100 million in damages for alleged civil rights 

violations by unknown and unnamed officers of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department. To 

the extent Ms. Porter-Heft seeks to assert civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

Case 5:20-cv-01570-VKD Document 5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
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

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A person deprives another of a 

‘constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 

(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978)).

Ms. Porter-Heft’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts demonstrating that she has a 

viable claim for relief. In essence, she alleges that she has been subject to retaliation and 

harassment by law enforcement. Her complaint, however, simply alleges that while driving on 

“October 23,” she “was lit up” by an “officer from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Dept. where 

[she] stopped and complied.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4. In a declaration submitted with her complaint, Ms. 

Porter-Heft alludes to other alleged law enforcement “pursuit chase[s]” in which spike strips were 

used, including one such incident in which she “refused to stop.” Dkt. No. 2 at 2. She mentions 

“[t]hree DUI’s without any evidence” resulting in the revocation of her driver’s license after she 

“question[ed] the Judge”; “hundreds o[f] 911 calls about [her]” reportedly not connected to any 

criminal acts; and “[n]umerous beatings and robberies at the hands of all law enforcement 

agencies.” Id. at 2-3. She seems to suggest that these alleged incidents stem from abuse her son 

reportedly suffered in Juvenile Hall over twenty years ago or to “2005 FBI/DOJ firings.” Dkt. No. 

1 at 5; Dkt. No. 2 at 5.

These vague and disparate allegations are deficient and do not establish a legally coherent 

theory of liability establishing the violation of a constitutional right, or that the defendants are 

liable for the injuries Ms. Porter-Heft claims to have suffered. Accordingly, this Court concludes 

that the complaint should be dismissed. Absent consent, however, a magistrate judge has no 

authority to issue a dispositive order. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 

2017). Therefore, this case shall be reassigned to a District Judge with the recommendation that 

the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Ms. Porter-Heft may file an objection to this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72. In view of the current COVID-19 public health emergency, this Court extends the deadline for 

Case 5:20-cv-01570-VKD Document 5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
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

submitting objections to May 4, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-01570-VKD Document 5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3