Moreno v. Pena

Background

Rigoberto Jose Moreno filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that police officers badly beat him after he called police to resolve a dispute at the single-room-occupancy residence where he lived. He also referred to medical treatment, unemployment benefits, housing, and the alleged acquisition of his health information by an ambulance service. The complaint sought several million dollars in damages and named more than twenty San Francisco police officers, some identified only by badge number.

The court stated that the complaint was difficult to follow. Its dates conflicted, some sentences were incoherent, some listed officers were not connected to any factual allegations, and some allegations concerned entities that were not named as defendants. The court also noted that the complaint appeared possibly to challenge state-court proceedings, including an eviction order, a default judgment, and criminal matters.

Screening and procedural rulings

Because Moreno qualified to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), that required the court to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court did not decide whether Moreno’s factual allegations were true or whether he ultimately could prevail. Instead, it ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—why the complaint should not be dismissed for failing to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. The court instructed that any amended complaint should present the facts in plain language and chronological order and identify what each defendant allegedly did.

The court also ordered Moreno to address whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing state-court judgments, or the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred any claims. It required him to clarify whether he was challenging a state-court judgment and whether relevant criminal charges had been dismissed or had resulted in a conviction. The court further required him to explain whether his claims related to three earlier cases he had filed in the district, because claim preclusion can bar later litigation of claims already resolved.

Orders

The order denied without prejudice Moreno’s request for a waiver of PACER fees because he had not shown a further need for free access to court filings. The order’s title also states that the motion for service of summons and PACER-fee waiver was denied without prejudice. The body explained that, if the court later determined that the complaint was sufficient against some or all defendants, it would instruct the U.S. Marshal to serve the summonses.

The court ordered Moreno to file either an amended complaint or a response by April 19, 2021. It did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It stated that if Moreno failed to respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The case-management conference was continued to May 28, 2021.

Judge

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order.