Moreno v. Pena

Background

Rigoberto Jose Moreno, proceeding without a lawyer, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He also requested a waiver of fees for the PACER public-access system and asked the court to direct service of summons on the defendants.

Moreno’s complaint named Officer Pena and more than 20 San Francisco police officers, some identified only by badge number. As the court understood it, Moreno alleged that police officers badly beat him without cause after he called police to the single-room-occupancy residence where he lived to resolve a dispute. The complaint gave conflicting dates for the alleged events, including dates in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and the court said the sequence was unclear.

Moreno also alleged that he was hospitalized, received inadequate medical screening, and continued to suffer pain and deep vein thrombosis. He referred to alleged conduct involving housing, unemployment benefits, his use of an Employment Development Division benefits card, and the San Francisco Fire Department’s alleged acquisition of his health information. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought several million dollars in damages. The opinion states that the hospital, the Employment Development Department, and the fire department were not named as defendants.

Court’s analysis

Because the court granted Moreno permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, it was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court concluded that Moreno’s complaint did not provide the required short and plain statement. It described the complaint as difficult to follow, noted that some sentences were incomprehensible, and said that several police officers were listed as defendants without any explanation of their alleged roles. The court also found that the allegations about the hospital and other matters were not clearly connected to claims against the named defendants. The court ordered Moreno to show why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 8(a), while allowing him an opportunity to amend.

The court also required Moreno to address whether the complaint sought to challenge state-court judgments. It explained that federal district courts generally cannot review and reject state-court decisions. It further directed Moreno to address whether a rule limiting certain damages claims that would invalidate a conviction or sentence applied to any of his claims, and to clarify whether the relevant criminal charges had been dismissed or resulted in a conviction.

Finally, the court noted that Moreno had filed three earlier cases in the district that had been dismissed. Without identifying those cases by their party captions, the court directed Moreno to explain whether his current claims related to those earlier cases. It explained that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, can prevent a person from bringing claims that were already raised or could have been raised in an earlier case when the required prior judgment and party relationships exist.

Orders and next steps

The court granted Moreno’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It separately granted his application for electronic filing. It denied his PACER fee-waiver application without prejudice, allowing him to file another request explaining why the waiver was necessary. It denied his motion to serve summons without prejudice; the court said it would instruct the U.S. Marshal to serve qualifying defendants if the complaint was later found sufficient.

The court ordered Moreno to file, by April 19, 2021, either an amended complaint or a response explaining why the current complaint was sufficient. Any amended complaint had to present the facts chronologically, identify the conduct of each defendant, address whether the case related to his earlier cases, use the case caption and number specified by the court, and include all facts, claims, and defendants because an amended complaint would replace the original complaint. If Moreno did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the case management conference to May 28, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.