Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01050-AWI-SMS 10 Plaintiff, 11 SCREENING ORDER v. 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 13 14 Defendants. (Doc. 2) / 15 16 Screening Order 17 Plaintiff Michael Tater-Alexander challenges the constitutionality of California Vehicle 18 Code § 4760, which requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to 19 20 renew a vehicle’s registration if the owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of a delinquent 21 parking violation. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his complaint on June 22 10, 2010. He seeks damages and equitable relief. This matter has been referred to the magistrate 23 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 -1- Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 20 1 I. Screening Requirement 2 A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with 3 economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 4 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 5 6 U.S. 915 (1992). In cases in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must 7 screen the complaint and must dismiss it at any time if it concludes that the action or appeal is 8 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 9 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 10 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 11 12 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . the action or appeal . fails to state a 13 claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 II. Background 15 A. Contesting Parking Tickets in California 16 California law considers parking violations as civil offenses subject to civil penalties and 17 18 administrative enforcement. California Vehicle Code §§ 40200, 40203.5(b). The statutory scheme 19 sets forth a two-step process for contesting a parking ticket. First, within 21 days of the issuance of 20 the ticket the person may request review by the processing agency. California Vehicle Code § 21 40215(a). The processing agency must then conduct an investigation, either with its own staff or 22 by the issuing agency. California Vehicle Code §§ 40215(a)(1).) If the person is not satisfied with 23 24 the results of this initial review, he or she may then request “administrative review,” consisting of a 25 hearing before an examiner. California Vehicle Code § 40215(a). The request for administrative 26 review must be made within 21 days following the mailing of the results of the initial review. 27 -2- Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 3 of 20 1 California Vehicle Code § 40215(b). The person requesting an administrative hearing shall deposit 2 the full amount of the parking penalty or shall follow the processing agency’s procedure for 3 providing satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. California Vehicle Code § 4 40215(b). After exhausting this administrative review process, the contestant may obtain judicial 5 6 review of the decision of the hearing examiner by filing an appeal in the superior court. California 7 Vehicle Code § 40230. 8 If the parking violator does not contest the parking ticket and does not pay the parking 9 penalty, the processing agency may notify the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the 10 DMV must then collect the unpaid penalties when the vehicle’s registration is renewed. California 11 12 Vehicle Code § 4760; 40220(a). In the alternative, if the violator has accumulated more than $400 13 in unpaid parking tickets, or if the vehicle’s registration is not renewed, then proof of the unpaid 14 parking tickets may be filed with the court with the same effect as a civil judgment. California 15 Vehicle Code § 40220(b) & (c). 16 B. Alleged Facts 17 18 On April 21, 2009, Plaintiff received a parking ticket from Defendant Fresno County. 19 Plaintiff alleges that he filed a “timely” request to dismiss the ticket, but provides no factual detail 20 from which the Court can evaluate his legal conclusion. Plaintiff also does not disclose the basis 21 of his request to dismiss the ticket. In an administrative decision dated May 26, 2009, and 22 postmarked May 29, 2009, Fresno County denied Plaintiff’s request, finding insufficient evidence 23 24 to dismiss. 25 /// 26 /// 27 -3- Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 4 of 20 1 On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff received a notice from Fresno County advising him that the 2 unpaid fine had doubled to $70.00 and that his vehicle registration could be withheld. On June 16, 3 2009, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. 4 On July 17, 2009, the registration of Plaintiff’s van expired. Because Plaintiff had not paid 5 6 the parking ticket, the California Department of Motor Vehicles refused to reregister it. Plaintiff 7 asked DMV for a hearing, which it denied. 8 Plaintiff continued to drive the van even though it was no longer registered. On September 9 6, 2009, Plaintiff was stopped by officers of Defendant Clovis Police Department and cited for 10 driving an unregistered vehicle in violation of California Vehicle Code § 4000(a)(1). Plaintiff 11 12 apparently refused to sign the citation and was arrested, handcuffed and taken to the emergency 13 room of Defendant Community Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff alleges that hospital personnel 14 tortured him by denying him his medicine for fourteen hours and denying his request to call his 15 attorneys. Plaintiff reports that he only signed the citation under protest after he sensed that he was 16 becoming hypoglycemic. 17 18 According to Plaintiff, the citation was tried in the Clovis branch of California Superior 19 Court. Plaintiff complains that the court denied his request to call expert witnesses from DMV. 20 Plaintiff also complains that Fresno County, DMV, and the Superior Court have denied his 21 requests for administrative hearings. On September 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a damages claim with 22 Fresno County, which was denied on December 10, 2009. 23 24 C. Pleading Standards 25 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 26 exceptions,” none of which applies to § 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 27 -4- Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 5 of 20 1 512 (2002). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement 3 must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon 4 which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 5 6 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 7 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing 8 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Plaintiff must set forth sufficient 9 factual matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 10 1949, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 11 12 conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 13 Although accepted as true, “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 14 above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A plaintiff must set 15 forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, 16 and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555-56 (internal quotation 17 18 marks and citations omitted). To adequately state a claim against a defendant, plaintiff must set 19 forth the legal and factual basis for his claim. 20 Emphasizing legal conclusions but providing minimal facts, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to 21 satisfy these basic pleading requirements. The complaint simply does not provide sufficient facts 22 to permit the Court to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, as this 23 24 screening order permits him to do, his factual allegations must establish the elements from which 25 the Court may draw legal conclusions, rather than asserting legal conclusions without factual 26 background. For example, at paragraph 22, Plaintiff alleges that he “has timely complied with all 27 -5- Case 1:10-cv-01050-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/18/10 Page 6 of 20 1 of the provisions of the law as it relates to the parking ticket,” but he does not set forth sufficient 2 facts for the Court to evaluate the timeliness and legal sufficiency of his claim and reach a legal 3 conclusion.