Amerson v. Adobe Services

Background

The court received Christopher A Amerson’s amended complaint. Because Amerson had been permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute requires the court to dismiss a qualifying complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of claim.

Claims Against Abode Services and Peggy Domaio

Amerson asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for certain violations of federal rights by state or local officials. The court explained that such claims could be brought only against state or local officials. Amerson had not shown that Abode Services, which the opinion describes as a housing nonprofit, or Peggy Domaio was a state or local official. He also had not alleged facts describing conduct by either defendant. The court found that his statement about holding everyone accountable for participating in a cover-up was not the specific factual allegation required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court noted that Amerson had already received multiple opportunities to amend these claims and had still not shown that Abode Services or Domaio could be sued under Section 1983.

Claims Against the Police and Fire Departments

Amerson also asserted Section 1983 claims against the Santa Clara Police Department and the Santa Clara Fire Department. The court stated that these departments were state actors that could be sued under Section 1983. Amerson alleged violations of the First and Eighth Amendments, including that the police department did not arrest people who shot him. But he did not explain how the alleged conduct violated his First Amendment rights concerning freedom of religion, speech, or assembly, or his Eighth Amendment rights concerning excessive bail or penalties or cruel and unusual punishment.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the claims against Peggy Domaio and Abode Services with prejudice, meaning Amerson could not amend his complaint again to bring claims against those defendants. The court granted Amerson leave to amend his claims against the Santa Clara Police Department and the Santa Clara Fire Department by April 30, 2021. The court stated that if he could not correct the problems identified in the opinion and the earlier screening order, his complaint would be dismissed. The court also recommended that he contact the Federal Pro Se Program for help drafting his complaint.