Baidan v. Romanovska

Background

Orest Baidan filed this action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. His original complaint asserted five state-law tort claims: defamation, fraud, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and extortion. The court previously found that the original complaint did not establish a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction and allowed Baidan to amend.

Baidan’s amended complaint repeated the state-law claims and added claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendant, Diana Romanovska, is described in the opinion as a private attorney representing Baidan’s ex-wife in state-court domestic-violence and divorce proceedings.

Baidan’s allegations concerned events beginning in May 2022. They included his detention by a Mountain View police officer after his ex-wife reported an altercation; the confiscation of firearms; state-court domestic-violence, criminal, and related proceedings; alleged false statements; alleged efforts to obtain restraining orders; and alleged interference with reports he tried to submit to police. Baidan claimed that Romanovska acted in cooperation with state officials to harm him and violate his federal rights.

Screening standard

Because Baidan was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute permits dismissal of such an action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court applied the rule that a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels, conclusions, or a bare recitation of legal elements.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court concluded that Baidan did not identify which provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act supported his claim. Because his allegations appeared to concern access to state courts, the court treated the claim as one under Title II, which prohibits disability discrimination by public entities.

The court concluded that the allegations failed to state a plausible Title II claim against Romanovska. Romanovska was described as a private citizen and private attorney, and the complaint did not allege that she represented a public entity. The court also explained that rights created by Title II cannot be enforced through § 1983 because the disability law has its own remedial scheme.

Fourteenth Amendment claims

Baidan asserted that Romanovska violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The court noted that Baidan did not explain why he believed he was denied equal protection.

A § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. A private person may be treated as a state actor when there is a sufficiently close connection between the state and the challenged conduct. The court considered Baidan’s allegations under the theory that Romanovska had engaged in joint action with state officials.

The court found that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege joint action. It identified only one alleged direct interaction between Romanovska and a state actor: Baidan’s allegation that she requested that the Mountain View Police Department file a criminal complaint against him. The court stated that merely complaining to police does not make a private person a state actor and that the allegation did not plausibly show collusion or cooperation. The other allegations involved conversations in which Romanovska allegedly did not participate, interactions with another private person, or actions taken in her role as an attorney representing her client. The court therefore concluded that the allegations did not support a Fourteenth Amendment claim under § 1983.

Requested relief and state-court rulings

The amended complaint did not identify the relief Baidan sought, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court said that if Baidan was seeking to overturn or undo final state-court judgments, such relief might be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing final state-court decisions. Because Baidan had not identified the relief he sought, the court did not decide whether that doctrine applied.

The court did not consider Baidan’s state-law claims at that time because it found that he had not stated a plausible federal claim.

Disposition

The court found that the amended complaint failed to state any plausible claim for relief under federal law and was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It continued to stay service of process and gave Baidan leave to amend once more. The next pleading must be titled “Second Amended Complaint,” include the case caption and case number, and comply with the order’s requirements. The court stated that if Baidan did not timely file another amended complaint, or if it did not cure the identified defects, the court might reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part.