Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05339/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Cantando
Defendant
City of Antioch
Defendant
Brian Hewitt
Defendant
Joseph C. Malfitano
Plaintiff

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH C. MALFITANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN HEWITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05339-MEJ 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(E)(2)

INTRODUCTION

On September 16, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Joseph C. Malfitano (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Appl., Dkt. No. 

2.1 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; screened the 

Complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, with 

leave to amend. See Order, Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See First Am. 

Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 8. Because Plaintiff continues to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court 

screens the Amended Complaint anew. For the reasons stated below, the Court once more 

DISMISSES the Amended Complaint, with leave to amend.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

A. Legal Standard

The Court must dismiss the Amended Complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim 

 

1

Plaintiff also consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). See Dkt. No. 6. Defendant has not been served yet in this matter, and therefore 

has not yet consented to or declined the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. As such, Defendant is 

not a party to the suit within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the Court may screen the 

Complaint. See Williams v. Oakland Police Dep’t, 2015 WL 5355393, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 

2015); Levy v. United States, 2012 WL 1439047, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). 

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 8
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

upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess whether 

there is a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings are 

liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Moreover, the 

Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

B. Allegations in the Original Complaint and Court Order Dismissing Same

In the Original Complaint, Plaintiff named as Defendants the City of Antioch (the “City”), 

Antioch Police Department (“APD”) Chief of Police Allen Cantando, APD Detective Brian 

Hewitt, and 50 Doe APD officers. Compl. ¶¶ 6-9. He asserted seven causes of action: (1) 

violations of federal constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Detective Hewitt; 

(2) municipal and supervisory liability claims against the City and Chief Cantando under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; (3) negligence against all Defendants; (4) violations of constitutional rights under 

California Civil Code § 52.1 against all Defendants; (5) false imprisonment against Detective 

Hewitt; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Detective Hewitt; and (7) negligent 

infliction of emotional distress against Detective Hewitt. Id. ¶¶ 28-67. 

The Court screened the Original Complaint and found the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims were unclear. See Order at 3. The Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a 

claim. Specifically, the Court found (1) the Complaint did not adequately explain the events 

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims; (2) it was unclear whether Plaintiff had timely presented his 

claims under California’s Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code sections 910 et seq.; and (3) to the 

extent Plaintiff was challenging a state court judgment, that claim would be barred under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Order at 3-5. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to address the 

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 8
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

deficiencies in his pleading. Id. at 5.

C. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s FAC consists of: (1) a two-page narrative of events; (2) a two-page calculation 

of damages; (3) a document showing the charges for which Plaintiff was booked from on June 5 

and released June 10 (Ex. A); (4) screenshots of pictures and text messages dated between June 

10, 2015 through June 25, 2015, which Plaintiff contends were exchanged between his wife and 

APD Officer Defendant Hewitt (Ex. B); (5) a copy of a letter from the City denying Plaintiff’s 

claim as untimely (Ex. C); (6) a copy of February 26, 2016 Felony and Misdemeanor Clerk’s 

Docket and Minutes from the Superior Court of California with a number of boxes checked, which 

Plaintiff alleges demonstrates his motion to dismiss a probation violation petition was granted and 

his probation was reinstated (Ex. D); (7) a copy of “Antioch Police Briefs” on the East County 

Today website regarding an incident that occurred on June 4, 2015 (Ex. E); and (8) a copy of an 

APD event report relating to an incident that occurred on June 4, 2015 (Ex. F). See FAC. 

In his narrative (FAC at 2), Plaintiff alleges “the Antioch police” raided his home at 

gunpoint, arrested him “with multiple firearm charges,” and then held him for six days before he 

was allowed to see a judge. Because he was placed on a “no bail hold,” the judge refused to 

release Plaintiff on his own recognizance but set bail at $15,000. Id. Plaintiff was released when 

his wife bailed him out that day. Id. After Plaintiff missed a court date, a bench warrant was 

issued. Id. “Concord police” picked Plaintiff up on the bench warrant several months later and 

arrested him. Id. Plaintiff was in jail “another day and a half or two.” Id. Plaintiff alleges the 

District Attorney filed a motion for probation violation based on the charges for which Plaintiff 

was arrested, that Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Pitchess Motion, and that the District Attorney then 

dismissed the charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff represents “the Pitchess motion provided 

evidence that the Antioch detective assigned to my case started to mess around with my wife and 

booked evidence against me.” Id.

The Antioch Police Briefs report that Plaintiff was arrested at his home after he brandished 

a gun at his wife and daughter in a parking lot on June 4, 2015, threatening to kill them and 

himself. FAC, Ex. E. Plaintiff alleges the website’s account is based on a false police report.

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 8
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

FAC at 2. He attaches an APD event report regarding the June 4, 2015 incident to the FAC. Id., 

Ex. F. The APD event report and another document Plaintiff attaches to the FAC suggest Plaintiff 

was arrested the following day and jailed through June 10, 2015. Id., Exs. A & E. Plaintiff does 

not state whether the arrest he describes in the narrative relates to the June 4, 2015 incident.

Plaintiff alleges a detective was contacting Plaintiff’s wife frequently by text message 

“while there was an ongoing criminal action against” him; he also attaches to the FAC screenshots 

of text messages he alleges were exchanged between Detective Hewitt and Plaintiff’s wife in June 

2015. See FAC at 2 & Ex. B. Plaintiff further alleges the “assigned detective was freely removing 

evidence from the Antioch police locker and giving it to [Plaintiff’s] wife.” FAC at 2; see also id. 

(“I have proof that the detective in question, in his own words, said that he went into the Antioch 

police evidence locker to get my wallet and pulled out a $400 Macys [sic] gift card that was mine, 

at my wife’s request and delivered it to her at her residence.”). He contends the detective 

frequently made up reasons to come see Plaintiff’s wife at her residence. It appears Plaintiff and 

his wife were separated at this point, and the detective’s text messages and visits took place “while 

[Plaintiff] was trying to get back together and smooth things out with [his wife.]” Id. 

Plaintiff refers to a “shooting investigation” he had “nothing to do with” and which he 

contends “the same detective” was trying to frame Plaintiff for the shooting “[a]nd/or just making 

up reasons to come see [Plaintiff’s] wife while on duty.” Id.

Plaintiff provides no additional facts regarding Defendants Police Chief Cantando or the 

City. He also fails to reassert any of the legal claims he included in the original Complaint.

D. Analysis and Screening

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires Plaintiff to provide a “short and plain 

statement” of the claims, but “more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 

accusation” to help the Court logically connect how the defendant caused Plaintiff’s injury and 

show what claims for relief exist. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ for . . . ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff’s FAC still fails to meet that standard. 

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 8
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

As an initial matter, the FAC violates Local Rule 10-1 (“Any party filing or moving to file 

an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any 

part of a prior pleading by reference.”).2 Instead of restating his claims and providing additional 

allegations, Plaintiff appears to be supplementing the original complaint with his narrative and 

attachments. This is improper; an amended complaint must stand alone. The Court only screens 

the Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint fails to clarify Plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing against the 

three named Defendants. In his narrative, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested at his home at gunpoint 

by APD, and also attaches a police report detailing a June 4, 2015 incident in a parking lot. He 

alleges the parking lot incident did not take place. Plaintiff alleges Detective Hewitt3

inappropriately commenced a relationship with Plaintiff’s wife, and removed a Macy’s card from 

Plaintiff’s wallet to give it to Plaintiff’s wife while Plaintiff’s wallet was being held in evidence by 

the police. The text messages and visits Plaintiff alleges took place between his wife and 

Detective Hewitt appear to have occurred after Plaintiff’s arrest and after the June 4, 2015 

incident. Moreover, in the Claim Plaintiff presented to the City, he alleges he “was arrested. 

Since the arrest, the district attorney p[u]rsued a probation revocati[on] action . . . while Detective 

B. Hewitt . . . began a[n] inappropriate intimate relationship with . . . [Plaintiff]’s wife, that he 

failed to disclose to the district attorney or his superiors.” FAC, Ex. C at 4. Plaintiff alleges in the 

FAC that Detective Hewitt was investigating a “shooting incident,” but does not explain what the 

shooting incident was; whether the shooting incident refers to the June 4, 2015 incident; or how 

that shooting incident relates to his claims. 

It is not clear from the narrative how Detective Hewitt’s relationship with Plaintiff’s wife 

relates to his claims. Plaintiff contends alternatively that Detective Hewitt was trying to frame 

Plaintiff and/or was trying to visit Plaintiff’s wife, but he does not allege Detective Hewitt arrested 

 

2

The Court’s Local Rules are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil.

3 Although Plaintiff does not specifically identify Detective Hewitt by name in the FAC, he 

annotates the exhibit containing the screenshots of text messages to identify messages he contends 

were sent by or to Detective Hewitt’s phone number. See FAC, Ex. B.

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 8
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

him, caused the District Attorney to attempt to revoke his probation, or filed a false police report 

regarding the June 4, 2015 incident. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to clearly articulate how Detective 

Hewitt violated Plaintiff’s rights. Nor does the FAC clearly identify Plaintiff’s asserted claims. 

The FAC also does not address either Defendant Cantando or the City. Plaintiff therefore has 

failed to clarify the basis upon which he would hold Defendants Cantando and City of Antioch 

liable under any theory. Without more clearly articulated statements about how each Defendant 

violated Plaintiff’s rights and when, the Court cannot at this point assess whether Plaintiff is 

capable of stating a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In its Order dismissing the Original Complaint, the Court also explained it was unclear 

whether Plaintiff’s claims are timely under California’s Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code sections 

910 et seq. Under section 911.2(a), claimants must present claims to government entity 

defendants within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A complaint against a public 

entity must allege facts demonstrating either that a claim was timely presented or that compliance 

with the claims statute is excused. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007), 

as modified (Oct. 10, 2007) (quotations omitted). Plaintiff attaches to the FAC the City’s Notice 

of Untimely Claim, which states Plaintiff did not timely present his claim to the City. See FAC, 

Ex. C at 1. The Court accordingly may consider the notice. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 

903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may consider documents attached to complaint as part of 

complaint (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c)). Plaintiff argues the notice was timely because it was 

presented within six months of the dismissal of his criminal case involving Hewitt, which occurred 

on February 26, 2016. See FAC, Ex. C. But a cause of action generally accrues when it is 

“complete with all of its elements”—those elements being “wrongdoing, harm, and causation.”

Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 788, 797 (2011) (citation omitted); see also Knox v. 

Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that under federal law a civil rights “claim 

accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the 

action.” (citation omitted)). Plaintiff’s harm did not necessarily accrue when “the criminal case 

involving Hewitt” was dismissed—rather, it would have accrued when Plaintiff knew or had 

reason to know Detective Hewitt injured him, and when Plaintiff was harmed by that injury. See 

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

id. Given the lack of clarity of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court cannot ascertain from the FAC 

when Plaintiff’s claims accrued and whether his claim presentation and this action are timely. 

Because timely claim presentation is “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action 

against defendant” and “thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action,” Shirk, 42 Cal. 4th at 

209, if Plaintiff did not timely present his claims to the City, those claims shall be barred. See City 

of Stockton v. Super. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 730, 737-38 (2007) (“[F]ailure to timely present a claim for 

money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.”). 

Plaintiff must allege facts showing why his claims were timely presented to the City.

In sum, the Court finds that the FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

by this Court. Because the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s claims are necessarily 

futile, it will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity to amend to clarify the facts giving rise to his 

claims and to cure the defects in his Original Complaint and in the FAC. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court DISMISSES the FAC WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint no later than January 12, 2017. Failure 

to file an amended complaint by January 12, 2017 may result in dismissal of this case for failure to 

prosecute. The Court will screen any amended complaint to ensure it state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted; the Court will evaluate any amended complaint based on the standards 

articulated in this Order, as well as on any other bases that become applicable based on the 

amendment. Plaintiff must follow the requirements of Local Rule 10-1 and file a pleading that 

sets forth all the factual and legal bases for his claims, without incorporating prior pleadings such 

as his Original Complaint or his Amended Complaint.

Additionally, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court encourages Plaintiff to seek 

assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of 

the Bar Association of San Francisco, by calling 415-782-8982 or by signing up for an 

appointment on the 15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California. There is also a Legal Help Center in Oakland, located on the 

4th Floor, Room 470S, of the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland. At the Legal Help 

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but 

not representation. More information is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05339-MEJ Document 11 Filed 12/14/16 Page 8 of 8