Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

Present: The Honorable Stephanie S. Christensen, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Teagan Snyder n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause

Lawrence Reddick has applied to proceed in forma pauperis in this

civil-rights action. (ECF 2.) He sues the San Bernardino Police

Department and one of its officers, the latter in both the officer’s

individual and official capacities.1 (ECF 1.) The factual allegations are

sparse. He alleges that the officer and an unspecified “fellow officer”

arrested Plaintiff “for the sole purpose of hiding a robbery” and using

his personal and business account for fraud. (Id. at 5.) He seeks to

have his criminal case dismissed and erased from his records, and $10

million. (Id. at 6.)

1 This is the first of two civil-rights lawsuits Plaintiff filed in

September 2025. The other is Case No. 5:25-cv-02465-FLA-SSC.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

THE STATUTORY SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen any civil action in which a plaintiff

proceeds in forma pauperis and dismiss any claims that are frivolous,

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Review for failure to state a claim under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) uses the same standard as that which is applied

under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). A complaint may be

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for two

reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts

under a cognizable legal theory. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med.

Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

In determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, courts

accept as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint and

view all inferences in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sprewell v.

Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A court does

not, however, “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory,

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Id.

DEFICIENCES

I

The exclusive method for challenging the fact or duration of a

plaintiff’s confinement is by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Under the doctrine

announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a claim that

“necessarily implie[s] the invalidity of [a] conviction or sentence [may]

not be maintained under § 1983 unless the [plaintiff] prove[s] ‘that the

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make

such determination[s], or called into question by a federal court’s

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.’” Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872,

875 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87); Wilkinson, 544

U.S. at 81–82. Heck applies regardless whether the plaintiff seeks

monetary or equitable relief. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81–82; Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572,

583–85 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, it appears from the alleged facts that Plaintiff is currently

being prosecuted on the charges he claims were improperly brought. If

so, the suit is Heck-barred.

II

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against a person who, acting

“under color of any statute . . . of any State[,]” deprives another of rights

guaranteed under the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see Thai v.

County of Los Angeles, 127 F.4th 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2025) (same).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint

contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 does not

require detailed factual allegations, at a minimum, a complaint must

allege sufficient facts to provide “fair notice” of both the particular claim

being asserted and “the grounds upon which [the particular claim]

rests[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007)

(citation modified). If a complaint does not clearly and concisely set

forth factual allegations sufficient to provide defendants with notice of

which defendant is being sued, on which theory, and what relief is being

sought against them, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. See,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (9th Cir. 1996) (a

complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on

what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”); Exmundo v. Kane,

553 F. App’x 742, 743 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court dismissal

of § 1983 claims where plaintiff’s allegations “were unclear as to the

timing and nature of [the defendant’s] actions”).

Here, the complaint violates Rule 8 because it fails to identify

which constitutional amendments were allegedly violated, and contains

only cursory allegations regarding Defendants’ actions.

III

Although he sues both the police department and the officer in his

official capacity,2 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for municipal

liability.

To state a claim for municipal liability, a plaintiff must show how

the alleged constitutional deprivation resulted from a municipal policy

or custom rather than the independent acts of individual municipal

employees. See Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403

(1997) (a county may not be held responsible for the acts of its

employees under a respondeat superior theory of liability); Kirkpatrick

2 Official-capacity suits “generally represent only another way of

pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.”

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). Accordingly, official-

capacity claims against municipal officials in their official capacities are

duplicative of claims against the municipality itself. Vance v. County of

Santa Clara, 928 F. Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (to

state a § 1983 claim against a municipal entity, “a plaintiff must go

beyond the respondeat superior theory of liability and demonstrate that

the alleged constitutional deprivation was the product of a policy or

custom of the local governmental unit”); see also Moodian v. County of

Alameda Social Services Agency, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1037 (N.D. Cal.

2002) (applying municipal liability standard in § 1983 case against

county social services agency and county social workers based on

removal of children from parent’s custody).

Known as Monell liability, a plaintiff can establish local

government liability in one of three ways. First, by commission, “when

implementation of its official policies or established customs inflicts [a]

constitutional injury.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 708 (Powell, J., concurring);

Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th Cir. 2010)

(noting that this category of conduct giving rise to municipal liability is

sometimes referred to as “acts of commission”), overruled on other

grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.

2016) (en banc). Second, by omission, “when [the municipality’s]

omissions amount to the local government’s own official policy.”

Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1249. And third, by ratification, when “the

individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with

final policy-making authority or such an official ratified a subordinate’s

unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.” Id. at 1250

(citation modified).

None of Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint is based on a policy

or custom, or a policy-related decision. Accordingly, he has failed to

state a claim for relief against the police department under Monell.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

ORDER

For all these reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

no later than January 5, 2026, why this action should not be

dismissed—in whole or in part—based on the deficiencies outlined

above.

Plaintiff may satisfy this order by voluntarily dismissing this

action using the attached form CV-09. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file

an amended complaint containing only well-pleaded, actionable claims

that fix the curable deficiencies.

Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint entirely replaces

the prior complaint in this action. Any amended complaint must:

(a) be labeled “First Amended Complaint”;

(b) be complete in and of itself and not refer in any manner to the

original complaint, i.e., it must include all of the claims on which

Plaintiff seeks to proceed, (see L.R. 15-2);

(c) contain a “short and plain” statement of the claim(s) for relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

(d) make each allegation “simple, concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(d)(1);

(e) set forth clearly the sequence of events (including specific

relevant dates) which allegedly gives rise to the claim(s) for relief,

including how each defendant’s specific conduct injured Plaintiff; and

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-02390-FLA-SSC Date: December 2, 2025

Title Lawrence Reddick v. Officer Campbell, et al.

(f) not add defendants or claims, except as contemplated by this

order.

Plaintiff is cautioned, though, that he may be denied further leave

to amend if he cannot “state a viable claim without contradicting any of

the allegations of his original complaint.” Garmon v. County of Los

Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).

Plaintiff is further cautioned that failure to file a timely

response to this order to show cause will result in a

recommendation to the district judge to dismiss this case for

failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R.

41-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:

Initials of Preparer ts