Loaiza v. Arzola

Background

David B. Loaiza, identified as a California parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court stated that his request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

The complaint named Juan Arzola and Berry Patterson as defendants. It also listed various people and entities under the heading for additional plaintiffs. In the statement of claims, Loaiza alleged that the individuals were connected to terrorist acts and a “new world order” movement and referred to attachments, but the three-page complaint had no attachments. He asked the court to help file criminal charges and to try the people he identified before world and religious leaders.

Court’s analysis

Because the action sought relief involving governmental entities or officials, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. It also noted that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federally protected right was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority. The court found that the complaint did not state a cognizable § 1983 claim because it did not allege facts showing that Arzola or Patterson were state actors, did not describe actions by them that violated Loaiza’s constitutional or other federal rights, and was otherwise vague and largely nonsensical.

The court further held that seeking criminal prosecution of other people is not available through a § 1983 action. A private citizen does not have a legally recognized interest in whether another person is prosecuted. The court also stated that Loaiza could represent only himself and seek relief for his own injuries, not those of other people. Even if he intended the people and entities listed as additional plaintiffs to be defendants, the pleading still lacked enough facts to state a claim.

Ruling

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Loaiza may file an amended complaint that addresses the identified deficiencies and must use the case caption and number from the order and place “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from it will no longer be part of the action.

The court also ordered that failure to respond as required and within the stated time will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The clerk was directed to send Loaiza two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.