Jacqueline Valentine v. San Mateo County

Background

Jacqueline Valentine, proceeding without a lawyer, initially sued San Mateo County, San Mateo County ADA Coordinator Daniel Radovich, and San Mateo Superior Court Judge Sarah Burdick. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California. The court granted Valentine permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of certain fee-free cases that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court previously ordered Valentine to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction and file an amended complaint. Her amended complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 18 U.S.C. § 1702, a criminal law concerning interference with mail. The court concluded that identifying federal laws adequately alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction, but found other deficiencies.

Problems Identified by the Court

The amended complaint named San Mateo County as the only defendant, but repeatedly referred to “Defendants” and did not clarify whether Valentine still intended to sue the three defendants named originally. It also did not explain what each defendant allegedly did. The court noted that claims against Judge Sarah Burdick or other judicial officers for actions taken in their judicial capacity would be barred by judicial immunity.

For the disability claim, Valentine alleged that defendants denied requests for accommodations such as electronic filing, remote participation, and alternative service methods. But she did not allege that she was disabled or provide specific details about her requests or the alleged denials.

For the constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Valentine alleged First Amendment retaliation for filing complaints and petitions, and Fourteenth Amendment violations involving obstructed filings, denied accommodations, an allegedly unfair hearing, and different treatment based on disability. The court found that she did not identify the complaints or petitions, the actions taken afterward, the reason she believed those actions were retaliatory, or enough specific facts to evaluate her due-process and equal-protection theories.

The court also found that Valentine provided no details about conduct violating 18 U.S.C. § 1702. More fundamentally, the court held that this criminal statute does not create a private right of action, meaning a private plaintiff cannot sue under it. The court therefore concluded that this claim lacked a legal basis.

Order

The court ordered Valentine to show cause why the case should not be dismissed by filing a second amended complaint. The court directed that complaint to briefly and clearly describe the underlying events, identify the laws allegedly violated, explain what each defendant did under each law, and describe the harm. A second amended complaint, if filed, would replace the earlier complaints and could not adopt their allegations merely by reference.

The order states that if Valentine does not file a second amended complaint, or if the new complaint does not correct the identified defects, the undersigned magistrate judge may recommend that the case be dismissed. The provided opinion text does not identify the magistrate judge by name.