Smith v. Sonoma County, California

Background

David Michael Smith, representing himself, filed a complaint against Sonoma County, California, the City of Petaluma, and other defendants, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law.

Smith alleged that his daughter reported abuse by her mother to her school, that Sonoma County Child Protective Services opened and then closed an investigation without informing him, and that he had not seen or spoken with his daughter for more than two months. He also alleged that his son was removed from his home on October 5, 2024. According to Smith, a Petaluma police officer, at the direction of Child Protective Services, served him with an emergency protective order that barred him from approaching his son or the child’s school.

Smith questioned the order’s validity because, according to his complaint, the officer had not personally spoken with the issuing judge, did not know the judge’s full name, and filled out the order in front of him. He also made allegations about threats of arrest, tracking devices, cellphone and wireless-system hacking, interference with his vehicle and employment, and threats to his life.

Screening analysis

The court granted Smith’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he satisfied the financial-eligibility requirement. But a complaint filed under that procedure must still be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant legally protected from such relief.

The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege a constitutional violation. It said the allegations about the daughter’s removal did not clearly identify the misconduct by the defendants. Regarding the son, the court explained that officials generally may not remove a child without a court order unless they have reasonable cause to believe the child faces imminent danger of serious bodily injury. The court found that Smith had not explained why the emergency protective order was invalid or alleged facts showing that officials lacked reasonable cause to remove his son.

The court also found that Smith did not allege a basis for municipal liability. A county or city cannot be held responsible under § 1983 merely because an employee allegedly acted unlawfully. Smith needed to allege that an official municipal policy or a persistent, widespread practice caused the violation, and the court found that he had not done so for Sonoma County or the City of Petaluma.

The court further found that the allegations about defendants stalking Smith, hacking electronic systems, disabling his vehicle, threatening his life, and interfering with his employment appeared not plausible on their face. It also said that Smith provided no context for the alleged threats of arrest, so the court could not determine whether those allegations described a constitutional violation.

Ruling and next steps

Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee and found that the complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court ordered Smith to file a first amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by December 3, 2024. The order stated that if he did not file a timely amended complaint, the court would recommend that the action be dismissed. The court also vacated the initial case-management conference and said it would be rescheduled later. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed in this order.