Ascarie v. The County of Santa Clara

Background

Mahmoud Ascarie filed an amended complaint against the County of Santa Clara, its Board of Supervisors, Mike Wasserman, Michael Harrison, Mary Ellen Luna, Joseph Takacs, James Stephens, and Gary Flagg. The amended complaint identified three causes of action: alleged retaliation involving freedom of speech, equal protection, and due process; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and a claim described as “abusing their immunity” and suppressing speech while interfering with agricultural and construction activity.

The court had previously allowed Ascarie to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That earlier screening concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim. Ascarie then filed the amended complaint.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court must dismiss a case filed without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that complaints must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible and must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claim. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints still must state a legally sufficient claim.

Discussion

The court concluded that the amended complaint failed to state any claim for relief.

For the alleged First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that Ascarie still did not identify which protected activities led to the alleged retaliation or which specific acts constituted retaliation. The court found that the remaining allegations were conclusory or appeared unrelated to protected activity.

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that Ascarie did not identify the extreme or outrageous conduct, the people responsible for it, or facts supporting the required elements of the claim. The court stated that the allegations were entirely conclusory.

As to the third cause of action, the court said it appeared to request damages rather than assert a separate claim. To the extent Ascarie intended it as an independent claim, the court could not discern any claim for relief from the allegations.

Disposition

Because not all parties had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the court directed the Clerk to reassign the action to a district judge. It recommended that Ascarie’s amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the recommendation did not state that refiling was barred. The text provided is a report and recommendation rather than a final district-judge dismissal. The document was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi.