Latronica v. Halfhill et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2014-cv-04257

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting {{26}} City of Modesto's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Action is DISMISSED as against all defendants.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MELANIE CHANTELL LATRONICA, Case No.: 14-cv-4257 YGR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANT 11 v. CITY OF MODESTO TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Northern District of California 12 MARTIN O. HALFHILL, et al., United States District Court 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff Melanie Chantell Latronica ("Latronica") filed her original complaint in this action 15 on September 19, 2014, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court, in its Order of 16 September 30, 2014, denied plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and 17 dismissed her case with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 9.) As the Court outlined in that Order, the 18 complaint stated no discernible basis for subject matter jurisdiction and was largely unintelligible as 19 to the nature of any claim, the basis for that claim, and against whom the claim was stated. Latronica 20 was given leave to amend. 21 22 Latronica thereafter paid the filing fee and filed her First Amended Complaint on October 28, 23 2014. (Dkt. No. 18.) On November 20, 2014, Defendant City of Modesto filed its Motion to 24 Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 26.) On November 21, 2015, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause the 25 claims in the First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 26 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which required her to file a written response no later 27 than December 22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 27.) 28 Plaintiff has filed a number of documents since that date, including: 1 (1) Notice of Motion for Hearing Request for Order Judicial Notice/Expedited Preliminary 2 Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 29, filed December 10, 2014); 3 (2) Declaration Notice to Court Pertaining to Order September 29, 2014 Pertaining to 4 Plaintiffs Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge and new Consent signed mailed with this 5 Declaration (Dkt. No. 31, filed December 10, 2014); 6 (3) Request for Entry of Default (Dkt. No. 37, filed December 16, 2014); 7 (4) Motion for Entry of Default (Dkt. Nos. 37, filed December 16, 2014); 8 (5) Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 38, filed December 16, 2014; 9 (6) "Opposition to City of Modesto's Motion to dismiss case against Defendant Modesto et 10 all (County Seal) Affidavit in Support Thereof" (Dkt. No. 41, filed December 22, 2014)1; 11 (7) "Declaration Notice to Court: Informing about the poisons to name only a few there's 12 Northern District of California more" (Dkt. No. 42, filed December 22, 2014); United States District Court 13 (8) "Motion Declaration to Honorable Court in light of….[sic]" (Dkt. No. 43, filed January 2, 14 2015); 15 (9) Motion for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment (against all defendants) 16 (Dkt. Nos. 46, and 47, filed January 20, 2015); 17 18 (10) "Notice Hearing/ Injunction Requested for hearing 1/15/15" (Dkt. No. 50, filed January 19 27, 2015); 20 (11) a letter with attachments addressed to Honorable Claudia Wilken with the heading 21 "Emergency Protective Order" (Dkt. No. 51, filed January 27, 2015); and 22 (12) Motion for issuance of subpoenas (Dkt. No. 52, filed January 30, 2015). 23 Latronica's First Amended Complaint remains essentially incomprehensible. She appears to 24 be attempting to state claims against a number of private and public entity defendants, including the 25 City of Modesto, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 26 and others. She alleges Constitutional deprivations based upon alleged criminal activity against her 27 1 28 On November 20, 2014, Defendant City of Modesto filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Melanie C. Latronica. (Dkt. No. 26.) 2 1 and "the girls," in the form of torture, slavery, forced injections, spraying with poisons and 2 chemicals, and procedures involving "internal animation technology," among other allegations. She 3 alleges that her claims arise under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, as well as the California 4 Victim's Bill of Rights Act, and 18 U.S.C. section 1595 regarding restitution to victims of human 5 trafficking and forced labor. 6 Defendant City of Modesto seeks an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for 7 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure. Dismissal is appropriate when a plaintiff fails to state a claim that has facial 9 plausibility such that the court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the 10 misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Further, dismissal is proper 11 when the complaint fails to set forth a "cognizable legal theory" that could entitle the plaintiff to 12 relief. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008). Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Here, the allegations against Defendant City of Modesto specifically are that the Modesto 14 Police Department kidnapped her and sent her to a torture facility in Bakersfield, and engaged in 15 "illegal activity" while she was in Los Banos and Merced. The allegations are incomprehensible to 16 the point that the defendant cannot be expected to respond or to identify any defenses that may apply. 17 Though abundant, the allegations are largely conclusory. More significantly, the allegations of the 18 First Amended Complaint do not have facial plausibility. 19 As a consequence, the Motion of Defendant City of Modesto to Dismiss is GRANTED. 20 Because Latronica was given an opportunity to amend already in this action, and made essentially 21 identical allegations and claims, no leave to amend is granted. Defendant City of Modesto is 22 DISMISSED.2 23 The Court also finds it appropriate to dismiss this action against the remaining defendants. A 24 court may properly dismiss a complaint sua sponte where the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief 25 under the statute urged. Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981). Although a court can 26 2 27 Despite Defendant's request, the Court declines to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant at this juncture. While courts have the inherent power to issue restrictive pre-filing orders against 28 vexatious litigants, such orders are only rarely issued. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) ("such pre-filing orders should rarely be filed"). 3 1 make such an order even without providing plaintiff an opportunity to respond, here the Court has 2 given Latronica the opportunity to amend her complaint and to show cause why the First Amended 3 Complaint should not be dismissed. Neither opportunity has resulted in the filing of a 4 comprehensible complaint. 5 Therefore, the Court Orders that this Action is DISMISSED as against all defendants. All 6 pending motions and requests are terminated. The Clerk is directed to close the case file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Date: February 4, 2015 _______________________________________ 9 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4