Banuelos v. Sandoval

ROBERT BANUELOS, Plaintiff, v. GLADYS SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01923---SAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 30, 2014

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 5)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 4, 2014. On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed December 22, 2014. (ECF No. 5.)

I.SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

II.COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Gladys Sandoval and the Kings County Board of Supervisors for incidents related to dependency proceedings for Plaintiff's son, Stefan Banuelos.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed for medical aid with the Kings County Human Services Department in December of 2009; and his intake case worker, Irene Hernandez, used the information to begin a sexual relationship with Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶ 6, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff complained of discrimination and threats to Lupe Vila, the Coordinator of Kings County in 2011.¹ (Id.)

Stefan was adjudged to be a dependent of the court pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Due to a condition of Plaintiff's probation, he was prohibited from having contact with his mother, Gloria Rodriguez. (Id. at ¶ 10.) In March of 2013, an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting was conducted for Stefan; and Plaintiff and Ms. Rodriguez were given notice to appear. The IEP meeting was also attended by Defendant Sandoval, Ms. Herrera, and designated school officials. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The result of the meeting was that Stefan was placed on home study. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff refused to sign the IEP. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

On July 3, 2013, Stefan was removed from the home of his grandmother and placed in agroup home. (Id. at ¶ 13.) In August 2013, while in the group home, Stefan was assaulted by another teen. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff was visiting his son and was informed by Defendant Sandoval that he could not use the outside recreation yard nor bring Stefan any gifts, although other parents used the outside recreation yard and brought their children gifts.² (Id. at ¶ 7.) This continued until April 2014; and Plaintiff complained about the discrimination to Defendant Sandoval's supervisor, Kristie Herrera. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff contends that in retaliation for his refusal to sign the IEP, Defendant Sandoval attempted to have his probation revoked, recommended to the juvenile court that his educational rights be revoked, stated that he had anger issues, attempted to stop visitation with Stefan, and falsified information to the court that his probation could not be modified. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.)

Plaintiff asserts that he relapsed and started using drugs due to the treatment he received from Defendant Sandoval. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff complained to the County about the treatment he was receiving by Defendant Sandoval and no corrective action was taken. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

III.DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Sandoval and the Kings County Board of Supervisors violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 USC §§ 1400 et al; and California Welfare and Institutions Code § 16010.6 by the acts alleged in the first amended complaint.

A. Kings County Board of Supervisors

Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of any allegations regarding the Kings County Board of Supervisors. To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim based upon the failure of the Department of Human Services to take any action in regards to his complaints against Defendant Sandoval or the removal of Stefan from his grandmother's home, a local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theoryof liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of through a policy or custom. Waggy v. Spokane County Washington, 594 F.3d 707, 713 (9th Cir. 2010). Generally, to establish municipal liability, the plaintiff must show that a constitutional right was violated, the municipality had a policy, that policy was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's constitutional rights, "and the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation." Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff's amended complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that a policy or custom existed in the County or that such a policy violated his federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Kings County Board of Supervisors.

B. Absolute Immunity

As Plaintiff was previously informed in the December 12, 2014 order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend, Defendant Sandoval is entitled to immunity for those functions she performed that are closely associated with the judicial process. (Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend 7:22-8:6, ECF No. 4.)

Individuals who perform functions that are an integral part of the judicial process are immune from liability. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 (1983) (witnesses testifying during judicial proceedings); Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (1981) (parole board officials in considering parole applications); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970 (probation officers and court-appointed psychiatrists in preparing and submitting reports to the court); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1985) (probation officer in investigating and preparing presentencing report for court); Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Social Services, 812 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 1987) (child services workers in initiating and pursuing dependency proceedings); Todd v. Landrum, No. 2:12-cv-01770 LKK KJN PS, 2012 WL 5187836, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (court appointed mediator). An individual's immunity is dependent upon the particular function that he performs and not on whether his position had a general relationship to the judicial proceedings. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Defendant Sandoval is "entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasi-prosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings." Meyers, 812 F.2d at 1157. Defendant Sandoval acted as an advocate for the County in preparing reports to the juvenile court during the pendency of the juvenile proceedings and is entitled to immunity for the contents of the reports and the recommendations included in such reports. Id. at 1159. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Defendant Sandoval for recommending that his educational rights be terminated, for testimony she provided in court proceedings, or for enforcing visitation orders imposed by the juvenile court. Miller, 335 F.3d at 896; Coverdell v. Dep't of Social and Health Servs, 834 F.2d 758, 765 (9th Cir. 1987). However, certain other actions alleged in the complaint are not clearly performed within the jurisdiction of prosecuting the action, such as communications with Plaintiff's parole officer and refusing to allow Plaintiff to give gifts to Stefan or access to the recreation yard. These allegations shall be discussed below.

C. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Liberally construed, the first amended complaint alleges violations of Plaintiff's rights to due process, equal protection, to petition the government, and for retaliation. Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); OSU Student Alliance...