Peng v. South Pasadena Police Dept
2:16-cv-01700
D. Nev.Apr 10, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Philip C. J. Peng sued the South Pasadena Police Department (SPPD) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an order to seal/destroy his adult arrest record and money damages for lost employment, stress, and financial injury.
- Peng alleges inability to obtain background check clearance for ~17 years, which prevented employment and foster-parent approval.
- Peng filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis using a Nevada state-court form rather than the federal form.
- Magistrate Judge Leen recommended denying IFP and dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
- The district court agreed that subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1983 exists but adopted the R&R in part, holding the complaint fails to plead personal jurisdiction over SPPD and denying IFP for procedural defects.
- The case was dismissed without prejudice and closed; dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction and IFP denial (without leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question / § 1983) | Peng sought relief for alleged constitutional harms and used the court’s § 1983 form | R&R said plaintiff failed to identify a statute authorizing relief, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Court held § 1983 provides subject-matter jurisdiction; magistrate erred on that point |
| Personal jurisdiction over SPPD | Peng brought suit in Nevada after unsuccessful California proceedings; did not allege SPPD contacts with Nevada | R&R argued Peng failed to allege any contacts, so Nevada courts lack personal jurisdiction | Court adopted R&R: complaint fails to plead general or specific personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice |
| In forma pauperis application | Peng submitted an IFP application but used a Nevada state-court form | R&R argued the wrong form was submitted so IFP should be denied | Court denied IFP without prejudice for failure to submit the proper federal form |
| Leave to amend | Peng did not allege forum contacts or propose jurisdictional facts in his objection | R&R found deficiencies could not be cured; court evaluated and agreed amendment would be futile for personal jurisdiction | Court dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (personal jurisdiction due process standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be essentially at home in forum)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction)
- Long v. Cnty. of L.A., 442 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (scope of § 1983 remedies)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (IFP complaint may be dismissed if lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)