Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-00462-WDK-PD Date: April 5, 2024

Title Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Verduzco N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Complaint

Should Not Be Dismissed

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff Glen Love (“Plaintiff”), a federal inmate

proceeding pro se, filed a civil right complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Defendant Benjamin Sanza (“Defendant”), an Inglewood police

officer, in his individual capacity. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] Plaintiff paid the filing

fee on February 7, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges that on July 30, 2017, Defendant knowingly presented

false information to a California state judge to obtain a search warrant for

Plaintiff’s store, the “Stop & Shop.” [Id. at 3, 5, 8, 23-35.] He alleges that

Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable

search and seizure and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due

process. [Id. at 4, 10, 12-15, 18.] Plaintiff further alleges that his personal

property was destroyed, and Defendant and the Inglewood Police Department

allowed thieves to steal his equipment. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff seeks $57,220.00

in actual losses and $500,000 in punitive damages. [Id. at 6.]

Attached as Exhibit Two to the Complaint is an Order in United States

v. v. Glen Dwight Love, et al., Case Number 2:18-cr-00430-JGB, Docket No.

326, denying Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence obtained through

wiretap and video surveillance. [Dkt. No. 1 at 37-46.] Plaintiff Glen Love is a

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-00462-WDK-PD Date: April 5, 2024

Title Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

defendant in that criminal matter and is one of the defendants whose

suppression motion was denied. [Id.] Included in Exhibit Three to the

Complaint are “Claim[s] for Damages” filed with the City of Inglewood dated

October 8 and October 16, 2017 [Id. at 51-59], along with correspondence

from the City of Inglewood [Id. at 48-49]. In a letter dated January 10, 2018,

Plaintiff was notified that his claim for damages was denied by the Inglewood

City Council. [Id. at 50.]

I. Standard of Review

The Court is required to screen pro se complaints brought by prisoners

and dismiss claims that, among other things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-

(b)(1). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts

as true the factual allegations contained in the Complaint and views all

inferences in a light most favorable to him. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d

889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court does not, however, “accept as true

allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979,

988 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court

construes the Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-

62 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

II. Discussion

A. The Heck Bar

To the extent that Plaintiff is suing Defendant for violations of his

rights under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable search and seizure, his

claim appears barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). A

§ 1983 claim must be dismissed if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” unless that

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

“[I]f a criminal conviction arising out of the same facts stands and is

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-00462-WDK-PD Date: April 5, 2024

Title Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

fundamentally inconsistent with the unlawful behavior for which section

1983 damages are sought, the 1983 action must be dismissed.” Smithart v.

Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); see, e.g., Szajer v. City

of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 611-12 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding Heck bars § 1983

Fourth Amendment claim challenging searches and seizures that led to

convictions). Consequently, “the relevant question is whether success in a

subsequent § 1983 suit would ‘necessarily imply’ or ‘demonstrate’ the

invalidity of the earlier conviction or sentence.” Smith v. City of Hemet, 394

F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487).

District courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both

within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a

direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria

Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court takes judicial notice of

court records in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California Case No. 2:18-cr-00430-JGB, United States v. Glen Dwight Love, et

al.

According to those court records, on April 24, 2023, Plaintiff pled guilty

to Counts One and Twenty-Two of the Indictment, charging him with

conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and

unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). [See Case No. 2:18-cr-00430-JGB, Dkt. Nos. 815, 816.] On July

17, 2023, Plaintiff was sentenced to prison for 108 months on Counts One and

Twenty-Two. [Id., Dkt. No. 844.]

A judgment in plaintiff’s favor on his Fourth Amendment claim would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction in Case No. 2:18-cr-00430-

JGB. This conviction has not been overturned, reversed, expunged, or

otherwise invalidated. As a result, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim

appears foreclosed by Heck.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-00462-WDK-PD Date: April 5, 2024

Title Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

B. Due Process Claim

Plaintiff alleges that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to

due process were violated. [Dkt. No. 1 at 5.] Plaintiff does not provide any

factual allegations about what process he contends he was “due” that he did

not receive. Further, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate what Defendant did or

failed to do with respect to this claim.

To the extent that Plaintiff contends that his due process rights under

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by Defendant’s alleged

intentional omission of material information in seeking the warrant [Dkt. No.

1 at 14], that claim also appears barred by Heck.

III. Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

why the Court should not recommend that the Complaint be dismissed for

failure to state actionable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To discharge

and satisfy this order, Plaintiff can either:

(1) File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which would entirely

supersede the Complaint, if he can cure the legal deficiencies outlined in this

Order. Plaintiff is advised that a FAC would entirely replace the 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

prior complaints, i.e., it must include all of the claims on which Plaintiff

seeks to proceed, Local Rule 15-2;

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

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

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

P. 8(d)(1);

(e) make allegations in numbered paragraphs, “each limited as

far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b);

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-00462-WDK-PD Date: April 5, 2024

Title Glen Love v. Benjamin Sanza

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

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

what each defendant did and how each specific defendant’s conduct injured

each specific plaintiff; and

(g) not add defendants or claims without leave of court.

or

(2) Voluntarily dismiss the action—without prejudice to refiling later if

justified—using the attached form CV-09.

Plaintiff must do one of these things by no later than April 29, 2024.

If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in this

action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached Notice

of Dismissal by April 29, 2024, which will result in the voluntary dismissal

of this action without prejudice.

Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, his failure

to timely file a First Amended Complaint or Notice of Dismissal may result in

the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds above or

for failure to diligently prosecute.

Finally, the Clerk is directed to provide a Central District of California

Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV-66, to Plaintiff to facilitate filing of a First

Amended Complaint if he elects to proceed in that fashion.

Attachments:

--Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (CV-09)

--Civil Rights Complaint Form (CV-66)

:

iv

Initials of Preparer