Bush v. Sonoma West Holdings Inc

Background

William D. Bush, who was representing himself, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application. Bush sued Sonoma West Holdings Inc. and Michael Babbini. He alleged that Sonoma West operated an industrial wastewater treatment facility, that Babbini operated the facility without required certifications, and that the facility was associated with pollution violations. Bush also alleged that Babbini reported conduct that led to Bush's arrest on trespassing and assault charges; those charges were later dismissed, according to the complaint.

Bush asserted three claims: two claims against Sonoma West under the Clean Water Act and one claim against Babbini under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, a federal criminal statute concerning false statements under oath in certain federal proceedings. Bush also alleged that he had notified the Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant parties about the alleged violations.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Bush was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court applied the pleading requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and contain enough factual matter to make the claim plausible. It also stated that courts read self-represented litigants' pleadings generously.

Clean Water Act Claims

The court questioned whether Bush had given legally sufficient notice of one of his two Clean Water Act claims. A private party bringing a Clean Water Act citizen suit must generally notify the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the relevant state, and the alleged violator of the specific violation. Bush's August 6, 2021 letter addressed Babbini's alleged lack of required certifications. The court concluded that, if Bush's claim concerning operation of a source in violation of a performance standard was intended to allege a different violation from the claim concerning an unlicensed operator, Bush had not shown that his notice identified that different violation. The court ordered him to show why that claim should not be dismissed for insufficient notice.

The court also found that Bush's allegations did not identify a particular performance standard that Sonoma West allegedly violated or explain how it violated that standard. As to the claim that Sonoma West allowed the facility to be operated by an unlicensed operator, Bush cited 33 U.S.C. § 1319 generally but did not identify a specific statute requiring individual wastewater-facility operators to be licensed or explain whether the alleged violation could be enforced through a private citizen suit. The court ordered Bush to show why both Clean Water Act claims should not be dismissed for inadequate factual allegations and statutory references.

Claim Under 18 U.S.C. § 1623

The court stated that 18 U.S.C. § 1623 provides criminal penalties for certain false statements under oath and does not create a private civil cause of action. It therefore ordered Bush to show why his claim against Babbini under that statute should not be dismissed. The court expressly did not decide whether Bush adequately alleged that Babbini made a false statement under oath or whether the statute applied to the alleged statements in a state-court criminal prosecution.

Order

The court did not enter a dismissal at this point. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Bush to file, by March 15, 2022, either an amended complaint or a response arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient. If Bush failed to respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the case-management conference to April 15, 2022, by Zoom webinar.