Hendrix v. City of Madera

1

ALEXANDER C. HENDRIX, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01212-JLT-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 30, 2023

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Alexander C. Hendrix (“Plaintiff”') proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action on August 24, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff's complaint is currently before the Court for screening.

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Summary of Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants: (1) City of Madera, (2) Madera Police Department, and (3) Officer Lori Alva.

On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff (then known as Alexander Grimaldi) went to the Madera Services to report that he had been raped. The victims' advocate called the Madera Police Department and said Plaintiff Alexander wanted to report a rape. Officer Lori Alva arrived and realized that Plaintiff was a male and began to interrogate him. She used Plaintiff's age against him, said that “you are a grown man” and you should be clearer with his partners. Officer Alva tried to intimidate Plaintiff and asked why he had an erection during the rape, the other person could say Plaintiff did something. She continually made excuses during the interview. Officer Alva reported falsely in her report that he only reported the rape because he was worried the woman would report it first. She also falsely reported that Plaintiff had said that the first and third time Plaintiff and the other person had sex was consensual, when Plaintiff repeatedly had told her that only the first time, and no other time, was consensual. She coerced Plaintiff into agreeing with Officer Alva's version.

Officer Alva asked Plaintiff's race and when Plaintiff said he was black, Officer Alva said he did not look black. She refused to take evidence from Plaintiff, or witness information. She “took evidence from suspect a video made by Plaintiff on August 19, 2022,” and made her conclusions from that video. Plaintiff had made the video when he was in the midst of a mental health issue. Officer Alva did not follow up after interviewing the suspect. Officer Alva wrongly concluded about the type of sex Plaintiff and the suspect had, but Plaintiff has text messages from the suspect contrary to Officer Alva's conclusions. She failed to collect DNA evidence, and lied about receiving an email from Plaintiff attaching evidence. Officer Alva's report stated that Plaintiff was not the victim of sexual assault. The district attorney did not file charges based on Officer Alva's investigation and report.

Plaintiff then made an official complaint with the Madera Police Department. The internal investigation by Madera Police Department found the report justified. The investigation did not address questioning into Plaintiff's race, failure to collect evidence or other such questions.

In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment violation. Officer Alva coerced Plaintiff into saying that he was only raped once by the suspected, but had told Officer Alva that the second and third times were not consensual.

In claim 2, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and substantive Due Process. Officer Alva discriminated against Plaintiff when she commented on his race as if his being black was unbelievable. She also commented “I don't know if you are one of those that doesn't like the police.” She discriminated against his gender saying “you are a grown man.” She denied his Equal Protection when she refused to take evidence, failed to turn over evidence, collected evidence only from the suspect, failed to follow up with Plaintiff, and when she could not believe he was a victim of sexual assault.

In claim 3, Plaintiff allege a First Amendment violation for Retaliation. Plaintiff asserts that Lori Alva, and possibly others at the Madera Police Department retaliated against him for reporting a serious crime and “[s]uch retaliation would infringe upon the plaintiff's first amendment right, undermining their ability to freely express their concerns and experiences without facing adverse consequences.” Officer Alva used the video Plaintiff had made during a mental health struggle to show that Plaintiff could not have been raped.

In claim 4, Plaintiff alleges emotional distress. The investigation involved intimidating and aggressive questioning, insensitive remarks, violation of privacy and dignity, etc.

In claim 5, Plaintiff alleges negligence in mishandling evidence, bias and discriminatory remarks, inadequate investigation.

In claim 6, Plaintiff alleges obstruction of justice for bias and discrimination, mishandling evidence, failure to follow up, inaccurate report.

In claim 7, Plaintiff alleges municipal liability. Plaintiff alleges a failure to train and supervise related to Defendant Alva's conduct.

As remedies, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent further violations by implementing training and polices for fair and unbiased investigations. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his right have been violated. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. As Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to the extent he can do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the relevant pleading and legal standards.

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “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, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of his claims and include factual allegations that identify what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.

B. Fourth Amendment

It is unclear what Plaintiff alleges is the Fourth Amendment violation. A Fourth Amendment claim cannot be based merely on “an officer's erroneous assumptions about the evidence he has received,” or on “[o]missions or misstatements resulting from negligence or good faith mistakes.” Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9^th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Smith, 588 F.2d 737, 739-40 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating that an officer “made certain erroneous assumptions on the basis of the information he received; but this does not amount to the reckless inclusion of false statements in his affidavit”); Rhabarian v. Cawley, 2013 WL 4049600, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (noting that “a merely sloppy investigation culminating in a search warrant - without a showing of deliberation or recklessness will not support a judicial-deception claim”), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 546015 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014), affd, 701 Fed.Appx. 676 (9th Cir. 2017).

To the extent Plaintiff is alleging he was coerced into certain statements, there is no constitutional right to be interviewed in any particular way. See Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (noting interviewers “must be permitted to exercise some discretion in deciding when to accept initial denials at face value and when to reject them (or withhold judgment on them) and proceed further”).

C. Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process

Plaintiff alleges that a failure to investigate his claim that he was raped adequately; however, a failure to investigate is not a basis for a...