Torres v. McDonnell

Background

Mario Torres filed a 72-page complaint on August 22, 2023, against 70 defendants. The complaint asserted one claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, nine claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242, and numerous state-law claims. It sought $600 million in damages and incorporated a 571-paragraph statement of facts covering events from 2012 through 2023.

The allegations concerned Torres’s July 4, 2012 arrest; his later criminal cases, trial, convictions, and 2015 plea agreement; his imprisonment and parole; proceedings involving his daughter; discovery and other matters in an earlier related federal case; complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; filings with the California Supreme Court; and a 2023 deduction from his bank account by the State Franchise Tax Board. The defendants included public defenders, private lawyers, judges, courts, clerks, court reporters, police officers, witnesses, state and federal entities, and unidentified defendants.

Because Torres proceeded without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That law requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that most of the claims were barred by claim or issue preclusion, legal doctrines that prevent a party from relitigating claims or factual and legal issues already decided in earlier proceedings. The court also found that many of the claims were duplicative and therefore frivolous under the screening statute.

The court dismissed without leave to amend claims concerning:

- Torres’s July 4, 2012 arrest, search, and seizure, which were already being litigated in an earlier related federal case; - the 2013 trial involving the assault of Rick Hendricks, which had been raised and dismissed in an earlier proceeding and whose dismissal had been affirmed on appeal; - the 2015 plea agreement, the proceedings leading to it, the resulting convictions, and an error in the state-court sentencing record that was later corrected; - Torres’s 2018 incarceration at Wasco State Prison, including allegations about medical care, property, and retaliation; - allegations that a California Supreme Court deputy clerk refused to file a “Verified Accusation”; and - claims that Torres’s 2019 parole violation was invalid or handled unfairly.

The court separately dismissed without leave to amend claims about discovery and allegedly false deposition transcripts in the earlier related federal case, explaining that those matters had to be addressed in that case rather than through a separate lawsuit.

The court ruled that § 1983 claims based on injuries occurring before August 22, 2021 were barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. The only allegation involving an event after that date concerned the State Franchise Tax Board’s deduction from Torres’s bank account in June or July 2023. The court found that claim conclusory and held that the Board was protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally bars damages suits against a state or its agencies in federal court. The court also held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 are criminal statutes that do not create a private right to sue.

The court found that the RICO claim failed for several reasons, including the four-year statute of limitations, claim preclusion, the rule associated with Heck v. Humphrey, immunity defenses, conclusory allegations, and implausible allegations. It dismissed that claim without leave to amend because the allegations supporting it were barred as a matter of law. For any state-law claims not already barred by preclusion or the statute of limitations, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and stated that Torres could pursue those claims in state court.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and was frivolous, and that its deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).