Perez v. State of California

Background

Silvia A. Brandon Perez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint asserting federal and state claims for government corruption, racism, hate crimes, incitement to violence, and emotional distress. The defendants included California state entities, Alameda County entities, and several neighbors. Perez also applied to proceed without paying filing fees and filed an emergency request for an injunction, meaning a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct while the case was pending.

The court said that the amended complaint was a rambling narrative that did not connect specific facts to a legal claim. Perez alleged harassment, discrimination, and other conduct based on gender, age, race, and religion, and identified herself as an ordained female priest according to Catholic Church rites. The court found those allegations conclusory and said the complaint did not provide supporting facts. The court could determine only that Perez had building-code and permitting disputes with government entities concerning residential property in Alameda County, along with tensions with neighbors about the property’s use.

Rulings

The court denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees. Under the screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court may dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim for relief; the court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It held that the amended complaint did not plausibly state a federal claim and dismissed the federal claims with leave to amend. Because those federal claims were the stated basis for federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The court denied the injunction request for the same reasons. It held that, without a plausible claim, Perez could not show a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question supporting an injunction, and the request did not identify a plausible and likely threat of irreparable harm. Judge James Donato ordered that any second amended complaint addressing the stated concerns be filed by November 18, 2019. The order stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b), and that Perez could not file additional injunction requests or motions pending further order.