Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01245/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01245-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Kirkland
Defendant
June Kuntz
Defendant
Monique Romero
Plaintiff
Roger Romero
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER D. ROMERO,

MONIQUE ROMERO,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1245 DFL JFM PS

vs.

RODNEY KIRKLAND and

JUNE KUNTZ,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se with a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’ October 5, 2005 motion to dismiss is presently calendared for

hearing on November 17, 2005. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the court has determined that

the matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review of the motion

and the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of

the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and

resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied,

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 11/15/05 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

396 U.S. 869 (1969). Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no

set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & 

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants are State of California employees, acting under

color of state law, who have control over Mr. Romero’s paychecks and who have “intentionally

and substantially reduced the amount of Roger Romero’s paychecks without the permission of

either plaintiff” (First Amended Complaint at 2), and without due process of law. Plaintiffs also

allege conversion. Plaintiffs sue defendants in their individual capacities and seek monetary and

punitive damages. 

In the opposition to the motion, plaintiffs contend defendants are acting under

color of state law, and that the deprivation of plaintiffs’ earnings without due process is a

constitutional violation. (Opp’n at 1-2.) Plaintiffs state that whether or not the defendants’

actions were authorized under state procedures is irrelevant.

However, plaintiffs are incorrect. As noted in this court’s August 26, 2005 order,

the United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of

property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for

the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Thus, where the state

provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 11/15/05 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

 If plaintiffs claim the actions by defendants were not authorized, they must seek relief 1

via a tort claim against public officials under California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. 

Because plaintiff has not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal

court on the claim that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. 

Plaintiff Roger Romero was previously advised that any attempt to litigate an unauthorized,

intentional deprivation of his property here is legally frivolous. See August 26, 2005 Order.

 The Martin court affirmed the district court’s denial of Martin’s civil rights complaint 2

brought against two IRS agents, his employer and another employee for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Id..

3

constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one

carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall,

773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142,

1149 (9th Cir. 1987).1

Additionally, as defendants note, if defendants are withholding plaintiff Roger

Romero’s earnings as withholding taxes pursuant to Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

requirements, such deductions are authorized and therefore are also not actionable herein. 

Plaintiffs have again failed to address or dispute this characterization of defendants’ actions. An

employer or employee may not be held liable for complying with the IRS's instructions to

withhold taxes from an employee’s paycheck. Martin v. Scott, 37 Fed.Appx. 878 (9th Cir.

2002) (see Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that an 2

employer is not liable to employee for complying with legal duty to withhold taxes). An

adequate post-deprivation procedure for recovery of withheld tax is available by pursuing a

refund under California Revenue and Taxation Code §§ 19381 et seq; see also McKesson Corp.

v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Florida, 496

U.S. 18, 31 (1990).

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must

give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs must allege with at least some

degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support their claims. Id. In

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 11/15/05 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

 For example, suit against individual state officers in their official capacities is barred by 3

the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits

brought by private parties against a state or 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)(per

curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982).

4

addition, plaintiffs must provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether it has

jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

3

The court finds the allegations in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint so vague and

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a

claim for relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a plain statement

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Because plaintiffs have failed to comply with the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the first amended complaint must be dismissed. In an

abundance of caution, the court will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, plaintiffs must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiffs must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Specifically, the second amended complaint must set forth the facts supporting each claim

separately, including the specific nature of the deprivation, including whether plaintiffs contend

the deprivation was authorized or unauthorized, and should clearly identify the defendants

against which the claims are made, explaining how they control plaintiffs’ earnings, and how said

actions demonstrate a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to adequately

address the nature of the deprivation alleged herein will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiffs’ second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 11/15/05 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

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiffs file a second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of November 17, 2005 on defendants’ motion to dismiss is

vacated.

2. Defendants’ October 5, 2005 motion is granted.

3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the docket

number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the second amended complaint; failure to file a second amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: November 15, 2005.

/001; romero.mtd2

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 11/15/05 Page 5 of 5