Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01296/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01296-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California DMV
Defendant
Robert Feldman
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FELDMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1296 MCE DAD PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA DMV, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a complaint for damages and injunctive relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and unspecified state laws. Defendants are the California Department of

Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), the State of California, and ten unnamed persons. The proceeding has

been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302(c)

(21).

Plaintiff’s complaint was accompanied by an unsigned and incomplete motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. In response to this court’s order filed July 23, 2007, plaintiff has

submitted a signed in forma pauperis application. Question 3 on the application form requires

the applicant to provide information about the amount of money received from each specified

source within the past 12 months. Plaintiff indicates that he received money from selfemployment but cannot continue his business because his stock burned down in a fire. Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01296-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

has not provided any information about the amount of money he received during the relevant

period. Although plaintiff’s showing of indigency is minimal, the undersigned will grant his

application to proceed in forma pauperis at this stage of the litigation.

The determination that a plaintiff is indigent does not complete the inquiry

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any

time if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if the action is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant.

A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, U.S. , , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). In considering whether a complaint

states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and

construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976);

Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less

stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

However, the court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

624 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff alleges the following facts: in July 2004 he went to a DMV office in

South Lake Tahoe to renew his driver’s license; the DMV accepted the renewal fees and issued a

temporary license valid for 60 days; plaintiff did not receive a permanent license within the 60-

day period; he received a letter stating that the birth date on Social Security records did not

match; for about 18 months thereafter, plaintiff received tickets and suffered arrests and car

Case 2:07-cv-01296-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 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

3

impounds for driving without a valid driver’s license; plaintiff sought help from legal aid

attorneys and contacted government representatives; he incurred costs of $ 5,700.00, for which

he filed a claim with the California State Victim Compensation agency; a driver’s license was

issued to him in December 2005, but the license was suspended in August 2006 based on points

he received for tickets issued when he was driving without a valid license; some of the tickets

were on appeal and were later reversed.

Plaintiff asserts five claims: (1) the DMV violated his 14th Amendment rights to

due process; (2) the DMV violated his 5th Amendment “rights of double jeopardy”; (3) the State

Victim Compensation agency violated “pendent state law of failing to compensate a victim of

their own misdeeds”; (4) the “undue arrest” caused by the misdeeds of the DMV violated

plaintiff’s 14th Amendment rights; and (5) he suffered substantial property deprivation and

damages in violation of his 14th and 5th Amendment rights.

By way of relief, plaintiff seeks orders (1) requiring the DMV to issue plaintiff a

driver’s license at no charge; (2) requiring the California State Victim Compensation agency to

issue him a check for $5,700.00 for the claim it rejected; (3) requiring the DMV to hold a hearing

where a licensee can contest issues prior to the revocation of any driver’s license; (4) requiring

the DMV to pay plaintiff $57,000.00 for his arrest and imprisonment; and (5) requiring the DMV

to pay plaintiff punitive damages of $570,000.00 for its malicious and deliberate violations of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

The caption of plaintiff’s complaint identifies the defendants as the California

Department of Motor Vehicles, the State of California, and ten fictitious persons. Plaintiff’s

allegations suggest that the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board is

also a defendant. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution serves as a

jurisdictional bar to federal suits for damages brought by private parties against a state or a state

agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332

(1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50

Case 2:07-cv-01296-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 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

4

(9th Cir. 1982). The State of California and its agencies, including the Department of Motor

Vehicles and the State Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, have not waived

Eleventh Amendment immunity. As a result, plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages from the

State of California and its agencies are legally frivolous and must be dismissed.

Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations against the California Victim Compensation and

Government Claims Board fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The agency is

mandated to provide compensation for victims and family members of victims of qualifying

crimes involving physical injury or threat of physical injury or death. See Cal. Gov’t Code 

§§ 13950(a) (declaring it in the public interest to compensate California residents for pecuniary

losses suffered as a direct result of criminal acts) & 13951(g) (defining “victim” as “an individual

who sustains injury or death as a direct result of a crime as specified in subdivision (e) of Section

13955”). The facts alleged by plaintiff do not demonstrate that he was a victim of a qualifying

crime and met the requirements for compensation. All of plaintiff’s claims against the Board

should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff seeks non-monetary relief in the form of orders requiring the DMV to

issue him a driver’s license without cost and prohibiting the DMV from revoking any driver’s

license without holding a hearing at which the licensee is present. Plaintiff has brought these

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute provides that every person who, under color of

state law, subjects a citizen to the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities shall be liable

to the party injured. It is well established that the States and their departments, agencies and

other political subdivisions are not “persons” for purposes of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66, 70-71 (1989); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d

1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for prospective injunctive relief against the

State of California and the California DMV must therefore be dismissed.

The undersigned finds that all of plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed as

frivolous, as failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or as having been brought

Case 2:07-cv-01296-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 4 of 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

5

against defendants who are entitled to immunity and are not persons for purposes of § 1983. 

Given these defects, it appears clear that granting leave to amend would be futile. See Reddy v.

Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296-97 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo

Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). The undersigned will therefore recommend that

plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s supplemental state claims

should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) which authorizes the district court to

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims if the court has dismissed all

claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 1, 2007 motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; and

2. The court decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s supplemental state

claims.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

ten court days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file any

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 5, 2007.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.pro se\feldman1296.ifpgr.f&rdism

Case 2:07-cv-01296-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 5 of 5