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 12, 2014

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action on December 4, 2014.

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 ALLEGATIONS¹

Plaintiff's son, Stefan Banuelos, has ADHD and speech difficulties and is developmentally and cognitively delayed. (Compl. 28,² ECF No. 1.) Stefan was removed from his parents' custody and a reunification plan was developed. (Id. at 34.) Stefan's grandmother, Gloria Rodriguez, visited Stefan while he was in placement, and eventually he was placed in her home as part of the placement plan. (Id. at 2, 31-32, 40.) On December 19, 2012, a restraining order was revised to allow Plaintiff to make contact with his son only while participating in supervised visits organized through Child Protective Services, and he was allowed contact Ms. Rodriguez by telephone. (Id. at 40.)

Stefan had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) staffing on September 6, 2012, and he was attending school half days until his situation stabilized. Stefan began attending special education classes at Shelly Baird School on January 31, 2013. (Id. at 28.)

An IEP team was staffed and a plan was developed to address Stefan's educational needs on March 14, 2013. (Id. at 2, 7-27, 28.) The IEP was required to review the current social, emotional and behavioral needs of Stefan to prepare appropriate IEP goals and ensure that his placement was appropriate. (Id. at 7-9.) Defendant Sandoval instructed Plaintiff and Ms. Rodriguez to attend the IEP. (Id. at 2.)

The IEP shows that the recommendation was for Stefan to be placed in a separate classroom in a public integrated facility for 300 minutes per day, 5 days per week. (ECF No. 1 at 25.) The educational team found that due to his lack of impulse control and ineffective emotional coping skills Stefan required more structure and supervision than can be provided in a regular classroom. (Id. at 10.) The team considered Special Day Class with possible mainstreaming into general education class. (Id. at 24.) Based on his continuing inappropriate behaviors, a county ED SDC classroom with SLP services and behavioral supports was found to be appropriate. (Id.) Stefan was out of the regular classroom 100% of the time with special education services being provided at his school of residence. (Id. at 26.)

Plaintiff disagreed with the IEP team's recommendation and wanted Stefan moved to another classroom stating the problem was that the teacher did not know how to deal with his son and that Stefan was just manipulating everyone so he could stay home. Stefan's grandmother would not engage in conversation, but shook her head "no" during the course of the IEP. The IEP team made the decision to place Stefan on home hospital with a school teacher to provide instruction while Stefan's medications were monitored. Plaintiff refused to sign the IEP. (Id. at 29.)

Plaintiff contends that on May 23, 2013, Defendant Sandoval filed a complaint with the Department of Human Services, the Juvenile Court, and Plaintiff's probation officer alleging that Plaintiff's anger is an issue. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sandoval falsified information as to his anger issues brought on by depression to have his conditions of probation upheld, and to prevent future visitation with his son and there were preexisting complaints filed from 2010 through 2013 with the Department of Human Services. (Id. at 4.)

On July 3, 2013, Stefan was removed from his grandmother's home due to issues with his school and medication. In August 2013, Stefan was assaulted by another teenager in the boy's home in which he was placed. Plaintiff contends that Stefan was removed from one home to another in violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 16010.6. (Id. at 3.)

Defendant Sandoval filed a status report with the court on September 10, 2013. (Id. at 39-41.) The report indicates that on March 28, 2013, Plaintiff's educational rights were limitedand recommends continuing to limit the educational rights of Plaintiff due to his refusing to sign the IEP; the active restraining order between himself, Ms. Rodriguez, and Stefan; and an active restraining order between Plaintiff and the Hanford Elementary School District. (Id. at 39-40.)

An IEP team reconvened on October 14, 2013 due to Stefan's escalating behavior of disrupting class and threatening staff. (Id.)

On October 15, 2013, the restraining order regarding Plaintiff's contact with Stefan was lifted by the state court. (Id. at 35.) On this same date, the court held a twelve month review hearing in the placement case. (Id. at 47.) Defendant Sandoval filed a report with the court prior to the hearing. (Id. at 47-49.)

The court found that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate necessary behavioral changes in his court-ordered case plan, including anger management skills and refusal to drug test upon request. (Id. at 36.) Reasonable services had been provided or offered to aid Plaintiff and Stefan's mother in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and custody of Stefan. (Id. at 36.) Continued placement was necessary and Stefan's current placement was found to be appropriate. (Id. at 36.) Plaintiff was found to have made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes that necessitated placing Stefan in out of home care. (Id. at 36.) The Court found that there was a need to limit the right of Plaintiff to make educational decisions for Stefan because he makes decisions that are contrary to Stefan's best interests. (Id. at 37.) The Court terminated family reunification services and approved the permanency planning case plan. (Id. at 37.)

Plaintiff alleges that in December 2013, after his probation was modified, Defendant Sandoval informed him that he could not bring gifts to Stefan and that he could not use the outside recreational yard. Plaintiff complained to Kristie Herrera. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff further contends that there were complaints that an employee of the Department of Human Services was involved in organized crime. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also alleges that an employee of the Department of Human Services, Irene Hernandez, breached the data base system and sought his personal information to achieve a sexual relationship. (Id. at 4.) The Human Resources Department obstructed the investigation. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff contends that due to issues regarding his son and the actions of the Kings County Human Services Department, he became depressed and suffered mental anguish causing him to use drugs. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sandoval retaliated against him for refusing the sign the IEP by attempting to violate his probation, and that reducing his son's education violates the Free Appropriate Education Act by shifting the burden to educate his son to Ms. Rodriguez. (Id. at 2.)

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendants Sandoval or Kings County Human Services Department. Plaintiff shall be provided an opportunity to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in this order.

III.DISCUSSION

A. Standing

For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). This requires the plaintiff to "show that he is under threat of suffering 'injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury." Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969 (citation omitted).

Additionally, constitutional rights are personal rights and only the person subject to the violation has standing to bring suit. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 160 (1990). "The general rule is that only the person whose [personal] rights were violated can sue to vindicate those rights." Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff may not bring suit to vindicate the constitutional rights of his son.

B. Linkage...