Pinzon v. Mendocino County Sherrif's Office

Background

Abraham G. Pinzon filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request only to the extent he pursued claims for himself. Pinzon sued the Mendocino County Sherrif's Office and the Department of Health and Human Services under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Pinzon alleged that the defendants or their employees intimidated and provoked him, requested documents to harass or displace minorities, deviated from program protocols to deprive him of a federal disbursement, discriminated against him in administering federal programs, policed him and Stanislaus Lodarski unfairly, arrested Lodarski on one occasion, and ignored Pinzon's complaints about fraud and exploitation at Lodarski's address. The complaint sought money damages, lost wages, relocation costs, and a residential property. Pinzon also purported to sue on Lodarski's behalf and on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration.

Screening standard

Because Pinzon sought to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires a court to dismiss a qualifying complaint that fails to state a claim for relief. The court explained that this review uses the same basic standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must give a short and plain statement with enough factual matter to make a plausible claim. The court also said it must read a self-represented litigant's pleading liberally, while it need not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences.

Deficiencies identified by the court

The court found the allegations sparse, disconnected, and difficult to understand. It identified several problems:

1. Pinzon could not represent Lodarski without the required court appointment and could not appear without a lawyer as a representative for another person. The court had not found Lodarski legally incompetent or appointed Pinzon as a representative. The court also stated that Pinzon could not sue on behalf of the two federal agencies as the real parties in interest.

2. The allegations about targeting and arrest suggested that a pending or completed criminal prosecution might create a jurisdictional or other legal bar to the civil action. The court did not make a final determination that such a bar applied.

3. The court stated that none of Pinzon's nine claims was properly stated under Title VI. It cited the requirement that a Title VI damages claim involve an entity receiving federal financial assistance.

4. The complaint did not provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. It was unclear how the claims connected to the defendants or how Pinzon, Lodarski, or the federal agencies were allegedly wronged.

Ruling

The court ordered that Pinzon's complaint was due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), with leave to amend. It gave him 30 days from receipt of the order to cure all identified deficiencies. The court warned that if he did not file an amended complaint, the undersigned would recommend that the action be dismissed. The order was a screening and pleading ruling; it did not resolve whether the alleged discrimination, corruption, or other conduct actually occurred or whether Pinzon was entitled to relief. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order.