Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03059/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Contra Costa
Defendant
Raoul E. Harley Jr.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAOUL E HARLEY JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-3059-TLN-JDP (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant County of Contra County, seeking to 

challenge a state court order requiring him to make child support payments. His complaint, 

however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint 

that better explains the factual basis for his claims. I will also grant his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 

(2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id.

Case 2:24-cv-03059-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 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

2

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that plaintiff seeks to challenge a state court

order requiring him to make child support payments. Plaintiff appears to contend that the order is 

void because it does not include an official seal and is not signed by a judge. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. 

He asks that this court dismiss his child support case and order defendant to reimburse him for 

wages garnished under the support order. Id. at 5. The complaint indicates that this suit is 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 3.

To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acting under color of 

state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). “[A] local government may not be 

sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Monell v. Dep’t of 

Case 2:24-cv-03059-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 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

3

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). But a local government may be sued when an employee 

who committed a constitutional violation was “acting pursuant to an expressly adopted official 

policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final policymaker.” Thomas v. Cnty. of Riverside, 

763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Plaintiff’s complaint 

neither identifies the specific constitutional right defendant allegedly violated nor alleges that 

plaintiff’s rights were violated pursuant to a policy or custom. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s suit, which appears to challenge a state court support order, runs

afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 

(9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claim because 

alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief 

he sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong 

and thus void”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests federal district courts of jurisdiction to 

conduct direct reviews of final state court determination. See Worldwide Church of God v. 

McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The United States District Court . . . has no 

authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 

plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against defendant. If plaintiff

decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 

amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 

serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to

assert each claim and allege defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 

should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff 

does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

Case 2:24-cv-03059-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend.

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03059-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4