Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudy Anaya
Defendant
Paul Weldon
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 

Plaintiff Paul Weldon (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant complaint in pro se against defendant 

Rudy Anaya, a police officer, for civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) and 

several state claims. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s complaint will be required either to file an 

amended complaint or to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his § 1983 claim. 

I. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was driving his properly registered vehicle in Fresno 

California on July 8, 2013. He pulled over and stopped in an apartment complex driveway to 

answer a phone call. Soon, a man on a motorcycle, wearing a police uniform, pulled up, flashed 

his emergency lights, and blocked Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that this man was a police 

officer named Rudy Anaya. Mr. Anaya told Plaintiff to put his car in park. He walked up to 

Plaintiff’s driver’s side window and asked to see his driver’s license. Plaintiff showed it to him. 

Mr. Anaya asked Plaintiff several questions. He did not have a warrant for his arrest. After about 

twenty minutes, Mr. Anaya returned Plaintiff’s driver’s license and pulled out of the parking lot. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on July 8, 2015. He alleges that Mr. Anaya’s actions 

PAUL WELDON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RUDY ANAYA, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-856-LJO-SMS 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF EITHER 

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR TO 

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO 

PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIM FOUND TO 

BE COGNIZABLE 

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 10/22/15 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 

constitute “malfeasance, assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to unencumbered right to freedom of movement and 

freedom of travel unimpeded as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” He requests that 

the Court find Mr. Anaya in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights protected by the Constitution, that 

the Court find Mr. Anaya in violation of various state torts, and that the Court make other findings 

regarding Mr. Anaya’s conduct including a finding that his actions were “unbecoming as an 

employee of the Fresno police department.” He requests that punitive damages and damages for 

expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Mr. Anaya’s actions; however, Plaintiff has not 

identified any expenses or actual damages incurred. 

II. SCREENING 

The court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with 

economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 

U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 

506 U.S. 915 (1992). Accordingly, this Court screens all complaints filed by plaintiffs in propria 

persona to ensure that the action is not frivolous or malicious, that the actions states a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, and that the complaint does not seek monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. This screening for failure to state a claim is cumulative 

of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that the defendant may choose to 

bring. See Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

III. RULE 8 

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, 679 (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.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id. at 678. 

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 10/22/15 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 

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. A 

pleading must give fair notice of the claim being asserted and the grounds upon which it rests. 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957); Yamaguchi v. United States Department of Air 

Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997). 

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it should grant leave to 

amend to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d at 1130. Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only 

where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that an 

opportunity to amend would be futile. Id. at 1128. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a civil rights violation, which is actionable under § 1983. To 

state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the 

Fourteenth Amendment, people are to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 369 (2003); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The Fourth 

Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures extends to brief investigatory 

stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of an arrest. United States v. Willis, 431 F3d 709, 714 

(9th Cir 2005); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979) (the detention of an automobile is a 

seizure within meaning of Fourth Amendment). 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that a police officer, a person acting under color of state law, 

violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when he 

blocked Plaintiff’s van without cause and told him to put his vehicle in park. Hence, he has stated 

a cognizable §1983 claim against defendant Rudy Anaya, which will be permitted to proceed.1

 

 

1

 Plaintiff has also alleged Mr. Anaya violated his constitutional right to freedom of movement. However, the right to 

freedom of movement governed by the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, which protects the right 

of ingress and egress between different states, is not implicated in this case. See U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 2, Clause 1;

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1869). 

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 10/22/15 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 

B. State Claims 

Plaintiff has identified certain California tort claims including assault, battery, false 

imprisonment, trespass, negligence, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff has not alleged that he has 

presented a timely claim to the Fresno Police Department. In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged 

facts that would support most of the California tort claims. 

Before a public entity or a public employee acting in the course and scope of employment 

can be sued under California law, the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 

810 et seq., requires “the timely presentation of a written claim and the rejection of the claim in 

whole or in part.” Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.1995) 

(citing Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, 145 Cal. App. 3d 861 (1983)). 

 Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Mr. Anaya is a Fresno police officer who, while in uniform, 

flashed his emergency lights and parked his motorcycle behind Plaintiff’s van. Mr. Anaya then 

asked to see Plaintiff’s driver’s license and asked him some questions. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that 

Mr. Anaya was a police officer acting in the scope of his employment with the Fresno Police 

Department, and claims against him are subject to the presentment requirements of the CTCA. 

Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the CTCA. Hence, as pled, his state tort claims are 

procedurally barred. Plaintiff may amend his complaint to allege compliance with the CTCA. If 

Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he is advised to research each cause of action he has alleged 

order to understand the necessary elements of each claim and allege sufficient facts to state claims 

that are cognizable on their face. 

V. LEAVE TO AMEND 

Plaintiff will be given opportunity to amend his complaint in accordance with this order. If 

Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it must bear the docket number assigned in this case 

and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. Plaintiff is warned that all causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint will be deemed waived. 

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 10/22/15 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 

VI. ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of this order, Plaintiff must either: 1) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified by the Court in this order; or 2) notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file 

an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only with his §1983 claim. Failure to comply with 

this order will result in dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 22, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 10/22/15 Page 5 of 5