affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally 4 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain 5 defendants”
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally 4 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain 5 defendants”
- “The Fourteenth Amendment, and not the Eighth Amendment, governs cruel 7 and unusual punishment claims of pretrial detainees.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SANDY HOLT, Case No. 2:24-cv-03256-DJC-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SGT. FORSYTH #221, et al., (ECF No. 4)
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Sandy Holt is proceeding in this action pro se.1 On April 25, 2025, the
18 Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed her
19 complaint with leave to amend. See 4/25/2025 Order (ECF No. 3). On May 22, 2025,
20 Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). FAC (ECF No. 4).
21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 The determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not
23 complete the inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in
24 forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or
25 malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary
26 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous
2 when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
3 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the
4 factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or
5 fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
6 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592
7 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
8 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
9 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).
10 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
12 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
13 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough
16 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
17 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
18 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
19 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
20 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be
21 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
22 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
23 II. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
24 Plaintiff brings this Section 1983 action against Defendants Sacramento County
25 Sergent Forsyth #221 and Sacramento County Deputy Higley #473. FAC at 1-2. The
26 FAC alleges the following claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) violation of the
27 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for unlawful search and seizure and deprivation of
28 personal property without a warrant or due process; (2) violation of the Eighth and
1 Fourteenth Amendments for cruel and unusual punishment, emotional distress, undue
2 hardships, abuse of power under color of law; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth
3 Amendment for falsification of official records. FAC at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges on December
4 23, 2023, at 12499 Folsom Blvd., Rancho Cordova, California, Defendants took
5 possession of her 2007 Dodge Charger SRT8 without “legal justification” and without
6 “due process.” FAC ¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges prior to the seizure of her vehicle, Defendants
7 engaged in premediated conduct by filling out a “notice of stored vehicle” prior to their
8 arrival. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges when Defendants arrived, she had informed Defendants
9 that the property manager had issued her a 72-hour notice to move her vehicle or risk
10 being towed and that only 24 hours had passed. Id. ¶ 9. When Plaintiff stated she would
11 move the vehicle herself, she was told the vehicle was in possession. Id. Plaintiff alleges
12 Defendants falsified an official report and fabricated reasons to justify the seizure of her
13 vehicle when the vehicle was parked on private property and failed to provide prior
14 notice to Plaintiff that her vehicle would be towed. Id. ¶¶ 10, 16. Plaintiff alleges she did
15 not consent to the seizure of her vehicle and that her vehicle was neither obstructing
16 traffic nor posing a public safety hazard. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants
17 did not do an inventory when impounding her vehicle as required under police
18 departmental policy. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ actions were willful and
19 without legal basis and constitute premeditated auto theft. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff further
20 alleges Defendant Forsyth has a pattern of constitutional and departmental violations as
21 to Plaintiff’s vehicle based on a prior encounter in July 10, 2023 where the towing of
22 Plaintiff’s vehicle was found to be illegal. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff seeks $6 million in damages
23 and other forms of relief. Id. ¶¶ 25-29.
24 III. DISCUSSION
25 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
26 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,
27 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
28 Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (internal quotation marks
1 omitted). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights but merely provides a
2 method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S.
3 266, 271 (1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To state a cognizable
4 § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right protected by the Constitution
5 and laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
6 person who acted under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Florer v.
7 Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2011). An individual
8 defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's
9 personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between
10 the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen
11 v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th
12 Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable
13 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
14 Plaintiff raises the following claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) violation of
15 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for unlawful search and seizure and deprivation
16 of personal property without a warrant or due process; (2) violation of the Eighth and
17 Fourteenth Amendments for cruel and unusual punishment, emotional distress, undue
18 hardships, abuse of power under color of law; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth
19 Amendment for falsification of official records. FAC at 4-5. The Court addresses each of
20 the claims below.
21 1. First Cause of Action: Unlawful Search and Seizure
22 First, Plaintiff brings a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claim pursuant to
23 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the unlawful search and seizure of her vehicle. FAC at 4. The
24 Fourth Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,
25 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. Mapp
26 v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). “The impoundment of an automobile is a seizure
27 within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d
28 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005). The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all search and
1 seizure. “[I]f the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause,
2 that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
3 officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to
4 seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid.” Carroll v. United States, 267
5 U.S. 132, 149 (1925). Plaintiff alleges Defendants justified the seizure of her vehicle by
6 falsifying information. See FAC at ¶¶10, 16. This cause of action as pled is sufficient for
7 screening purposes to require Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
8 cause of action.
9 However, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is seeking to raise a separate cause of
10 action for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment relating to the
11 seizure of her vehicle. “A procedural due process claim has two distinct elements: (1) a
12 deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of
13 adequate procedural protections.” Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch.
14 Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff does not clearly allege a separate
15 cause of action and what procedural protection she believes she was entitled to but
16 denied. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to raise a separate cause of action for a due
17 process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, this cause of action is dismissed
18 with leave to amend. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend her First
19 Amended Complaint, if she can, alleging what procedural protection she believes she
20 was entitled to and facts demonstrating Defendants’ connection to or involvement in the
21 alleged violations.
22 2. Second Cause of Action: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
23 Second, Plaintiff brings an Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claim pursuant to
24 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment asserting that Plaintiff “has had to
25 walk everywhere she goes or take public transportation” due to ”the ripple effect of
26 Defendant’s decisions.” FAC at 5. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual
27 punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
28 under the Eighth Amendment applies only after conviction and sentencing. Lee v. City of
1 Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). “Eighth Amendment protections apply
2 only once a prisoner has been convicted of a crime, while pretrial detainees are entitled
3 to the potentially more expansive protections of the Due Process Clause of the
4 Fourteenth Amendment.” Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1246 n.5 (9th Cir.
5 2016); see also Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 924 n.2 (9th
6 Cir. 2017) (“The Fourteenth Amendment, and not the Eighth Amendment, governs cruel
7 and unusual punishment claims of pretrial detainees.”). The First Amended Complaint
8 does not make any allegations that Plaintiff was a prisoner, arrested, or that she was a
9 pretrial detainee. See generally FAC. As a result, Plaintiff cannot bring a claim for cruel
10 and unusual punishment based on her currently pled allegations. Plaintiff will be
11 provided an opportunity to amend her First Amended Complaint, if she can, alleging
12 specific facts regarding whether Plaintiff’ was a prisoner or a pretrial detainee at the time
13 of the incident.
14 3. Third Cause of Action: Falsification of Records
15 Third, Plaintiff brings a Fourteenth Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
16 § 1983 based on Defendants’ alleged submission of “false reports in order to justify
17 decisions made to steal plaintiff’s vehicle.” FAC at 5. There is a “clearly established due
18 process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that
19 was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070,
20 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001). To state a Section 1983 claim of deliberate fabrication, a
21 plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to allege that (1) the defendant official deliberately
22 fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate fabrication caused the plaintiff's deprivation of
23 liberty. Orcutt v. Pelletier, 2023 WL 3735584, at *1 (9th Cir. May 31, 2023) (quoting
24 Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 2017)). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not
25 sufficiently allege that Defendants caused her deprivation of liberty or that Plaintiff was
26 subjected to criminal charges based on falsified records. See generally FAC. As a result,
27 Plaintiff cannot bring a claim for deliberate fabrication of reports based on her currently
28 pled allegations. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend her First Amended
1 Complaint, if she can, but must allege specific facts demonstrating, if any, that
2 Defendants deliberately fabricated evidence that caused Plaintiff’s deprivation of liberty.
3 B. Plaintiff’s Options
4 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve Defendants Sacramento County Sergent
5 Forsyth #221 and Sacramento County Deputy Higley #473 and pursue her Fourth
6 Amendment claim for unlawful search and seizure (First Cause of Action) only, or she
7 may delay serving any Defendant and attempt again to state cognizable claims against
8 Defendants Forsyth and Higley. If Plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against Defendants
9 Forsyth and Higley as to her Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search and seizure
10 (First Cause of Action), then within thirty days Plaintiff must so elect on the appended
11 form. In this event the Court will construe Plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of
12 her claim for cruel and unusual punishment (Second Cause of Action) and Fourteenth
13 Amendment claim for falsification of records (Third Cause of Action) against Defendants
14 without prejudice. Under this option, Plaintiff does not need to file a Second Amended
15 Complaint.
16 Or, Plaintiff may delay serving any Defendant and attempt again to cure the
17 deficiencies identified above. If Plaintiff elects to attempt to amend her complaint to cure
18 the deficiencies identified above, she has thirty days to do so.
19 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, this new pleading shall allege facts
20 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction and must contain a short and plain
21 statement of Plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in
22 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than
23 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being
24 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of
25 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help
26 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's
27 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at
28 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
1 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess
2 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
3 Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally
4 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain
5 defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the Court to spend its time
6 “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id.
7 at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare
8 lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179.
9 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in
10 order to make the amended complaint complete. The amended complaint should be
11 titled “Second Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint
12 be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an
13 amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the amended complaint is
14 filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any function in the case.
15 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).
16 IV. CONCLUSION
17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18 1. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) and Third
19 Cause of Action (Fourteenth Amendment Falsification of Records) against Defendants
20 Sacramento County Sergent Forsyth #221 and Sacramento County Deputy Higley #473
21 are dismissed with leave to amend. Within thirty days of service of this order, Plaintiff
22 may amend her complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these
23 defendants. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend her complaint.
24 2. The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are sufficient at least to state a
25 Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search and seizure (First Cause of Action) against
26 Defendants Sacramento County Sergent Forsyth #221 and Sacramento County Deputy
27 Higley #473. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff chooses to proceed solely as to this
28 claim, Plaintiff shall so indicate on the attached form and return it to the Court within
1 | thirty days from the date of this order. In this event, the Court will construe Plaintiff's
2 || election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing the defective claims
3 | without prejudice.
4 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action
5 | be dismissed.
6
7 | Dated: September 16, 2025 C □□ $ \U
8 CHI S00 KIM
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11 || 4, noit2356.24
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 SANDY HOLT, No. 2:24-cv-03256-DJC-CSK
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION
13 SGT. FORSYTH #221, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15
16
17 Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows:
18
______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with her Fourth Amendment claim for
19 unlawful search and seizure (First Cause of Action) against
Defendants Sacramento County Sergent Forsyth #221 and
20 Sacramento County Deputy Higley #473. Under this option, Plaintiff
consents to dismiss her Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Second
21 Cause of Action) and Fourteenth Amendment Falsification of
Records (Third Cause of Action) claims against Defendants
22
Sacramento County Sergent Forsyth #221 and Sacramento County
23 Deputy Higley #473 without prejudice.
OR
24
_____ Plaintiff opts to file a second amended complaint and delay service
25 of process.
26 DATED:
27 _______________________________
Plaintiff
28