1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTINE VAN SKIKE, Case No. 22-cv-03222-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO

v. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915

10 CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff Christine Van Skike, who is proceeding without an attorney, filed this action 13 against the City of Santa Rosa, Police Chief Rainer Navarro, City Manager Maraskeshia Smith, 14 and “Officer M.P. #497.” The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court now reviews the complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 16 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 17 At some point, the City of Santa Rosa took Plaintiff’s trailer and car, which put her “back 18 on the streets.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Now, Plaintiff resides at 2384 Old Stony Point Road in Santa 19 Rosa, California. (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff lives in a “shack” where “the property owner is 20 allowing [her] to stay.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) The Santa Rosa Police Department gave Plaintiff a 21 misdemeanor citation for trespassing on the property. (Id.) The citing officer told Plaintiff to 22 leave the property and directed her to the “Sam Jones Shelter.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 8.) This shelter 23 has multiple known COVID-19 cases. (Id.) Plaintiff is particularly susceptible to COVID-19 due 24 to prior illnesses, including chronic bronchitis and necrotizing fasciitis. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) 25 Plaintiff alleges various constitutional violations, including violations of the Fourth 26 Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment, related to this citation. (Dkt. 1-1 27 at 5.) Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining order, enjoining Defendants from assaulting or 1 DISCUSSION 2 The Court must dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the 3 Court finds that the case: (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief 4 may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) mirrors that of 6 Rule 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, the complaint must 7 allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not a “probability 9 requirement” but mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must 11 contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 12 elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–57. “A claim has facial plausibility 13 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 14 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 15 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 16 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15- 17 cv03456-JSC, 2015 WL 5360294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). “While the federal rules 18 require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the defendants ‘fair 19 notice’ of the claim and the ‘grounds upon which it rests.’” Coleman v. Beard, No. 14-CV-05508- 20 YGR (PR), 2015 WL 395662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). A complaint that fails to state a defendant’s specific acts “that violated the 22 plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a).” Medina Chiprez v. Becerra, 23 No. 20-CV00307-YGR (PR), 2020 WL 4284825, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020) (citing 24 Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 When a plaintiff files a complaint without representation by a lawyer, the Court must 26 “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. 27 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). 1 I. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim 2 Plaintiff states that Defendants violated her “1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 8th, and 14th amendment 3 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by displacing [her] of [her] home.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) “Section 4 1983 provides a cause of action for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured 5 by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 6 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but 7 merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 8 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989) (cleaned up). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff 9 must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 10 United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 11 under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff alleges that two 12 actions violated her rights. First, the City of Santa Rosa took her car and trailer. Second, she 13 received a citation for trespassing at 2384 Old Stony Point Road. 14 Regarding her vehicles, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 15 granted. The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding who took her vehicles, 16 when they taken, or why she believes they were seized unlawfully. The complaint must set forth 17 specific factual allegations that, if assumed true, would allow the Court to draw the reasonable 18 inference that each Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 19 Likewise, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim regarding the citation. In her 20 application for a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff relies on Martin v. City of Boise to argue 21 that the citation against her violates the Eighth Amendment. 920 F.3d 584, 617 (9th Cir. 2019). 22 There, the Court of Appeals found that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of 23 criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless 24 individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Id. Martin, however, does not support Plaintiff’s case. 25 Martin applied to anti-camping ordinances on public land. The dispute at issue here concerns a 26 trespass citation due to Plaintiff’s presence on private land. Thus, Martin does not apply. As a 27 result, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for the violation of her Eighth Amendment rights. 1 II. Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is Denied 2 Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 3 for failure to state a claim, the Court also denies Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining 4 || order. (Dkt. No. 3.) At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that she 5 will succeed on the merits. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed and Plaintiff's 8 application for a temporary restraining order is denied. If Plaintiff believes she may cure the 9 deficiencies, or at least some of the deficiencies, she may file an amended complaint on or 10 || before July 6, 2022. The Court cannot refer to prior pleadings to make an amended complaint 11 complete. Thus, Plaintiff's amended complaint must be complete in itself because it replaces the 12 || previously filed complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 13 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free assistance from the Northern District's 14 Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 3 15 Plaintiff should make a telephone appointment by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing a 16 || fedpro@sfbar.org. 3 17 This Order disposes of Docket No. 3. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 6, 2022

21 ne 7 JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28