Skike v. City of Santa Rosa

Background

Christine Van Skike filed the case without a lawyer against the City of Santa Rosa, Police Chief Rainer Navarro, City Manager Maraskeshia Smith, and “Officer M.P. #497.” The court had granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and then screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Van Skike alleged that the City took her car and trailer, leaving her without housing. She also alleged that the Santa Rosa Police Department gave her a misdemeanor trespassing citation and directed her to the Sam Jones Shelter, which she said had multiple known COVID-19 cases. She alleged that prior illnesses made her particularly susceptible to COVID-19. Her complaint asserted constitutional violations under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. She also requested a temporary restraining order barring the defendants from assaulting or otherwise harming her.

Court’s analysis

Under the screening statute, the court had to dismiss the case if the complaint was frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant who was legally immune. The court applied the same basic standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to provide enough specific facts to make the alleged legal violations plausible and to tell each defendant what that defendant allegedly did.

The court held that the allegations about the car and trailer did not state a claim because the complaint did not identify who took them, when they were taken, or why Van Skike believed the seizure was unlawful. The court also held that the allegations about the trespassing citation did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. Van Skike relied on a prior decision concerning criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property when homeless people could not obtain shelter. The court explained that decision concerned anti-camping ordinances on public land, while Van Skike’s case involved a trespassing citation based on her presence on private land.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim and denied the application for a temporary restraining order because Van Skike had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court stated that she could file an amended complaint by July 6, 2022, if she believed she could correct some or all of the deficiencies. Any amended complaint had to be complete by itself and would replace the earlier complaints. The order disposed of Docket No. 3.