Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00579/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00579-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Gregory Leonard Gonzales
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LEONARD GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00579----MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a County inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

eminent domain action. His complaint is before the Court for screening.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/24/16 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

27

28

2

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is detained at the Fresno County Jail. His allegations are unrelated to his 

detention. He names the City of Fresno as sole defendant in this action.

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff was “kicked out” of his house by the City of Fresno, 

acting through “housing development,” City police officers, and “City Coding.” Plaintiff 

was told that his house was unstable and not up to code. The following day, March 26, 

2015, Plaintiff’s house was knocked down. Plaintiff did not have time to remove 

anything. Plaintiff believes the City wishes to take his property through eminent domain. 

He seeks money damages and a restraining order.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Eminent Domain

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “private property [shall 

not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The law 

on condemnations and physical takings is governed by the simple rule that “[w]hen the 

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/24/16 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

27

28

3

government physically takes possession of an interest in property for some public 

purpose, it has a categorical duty to compensate the former owner.” Tahoe–Sierra Pres. 

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 322 (2002). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that the City actually took possession of his property and 

thus he fails to state a claim under the Takings Clause. His belief that the City intends to 

take the property under eminent domain is, apparently, based on speculation. Absent 

further facts showing that the City intends to take possession of Plaintiff’s property 

without just compensation, this allegation fails to state a cognizable claim.

B. Due Process

Plaintiff may be able to state a due process claim in relation to the destruction of 

his home.

Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which 

deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 

319, 332 (1976). Due process requires: (1) notice, and (2) an opportunity to be heard at 

a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 

U.S. 252, 261 (1987); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 (“The fundamental requirement of due 

process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 

manner.’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965))). The Supreme Court 

has generally held that “some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally 

deprived of a property interest.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff does not state whether he had any notice of or opportunity to 

participate in hearings regarding the destruction of his home. He states that he did not 

have time between March 25 and March 26 to remove his belongings, but does not 

explain whether he had any prior notice regarding the purported safety and coding 

issues that the City identified as motivation for its actions. Absent facts to show that 

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/24/16 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

27

28

4

Plaintiff had neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard on these issues, he fails to 

state a cognizable claim.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff 

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts 

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff should carefully read this 

screening order and focus his efforts on curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted;

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/24/16 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

27

28

5

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order 

and failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 5