Piedvache, 1:17-cv-00429

Pro se plaintiff Rodney E. Piedvache filed a multi-part submission the Clerk treated as a federal Complaint alleging various rights violations related to state-court matters and a January 2, 2016 arrest.
Filings included a 10‑page “Court Minutes,” a sworn statement alleging rights violations by unnamed "piracy court agents," an affidavit regarding the arrest, excerpts of professional conduct rules, and assorted materials concerning driving without a license.
Plaintiff alleged ineffective assistance by appointed state counsel (Ivan Van Leer) and broadly referenced judges, police, prosecutors, and public defenders without specific factual allegations tying conduct to individual defendants.
The magistrate judge screened the submissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and governing pleading standards and concluded the filings failed to give fair notice of cognizable claims.
The magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction over state-court determinations, but granted leave to amend because amendment might cure defects.
Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the time set would result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pleading sufficiency under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8	Piedvache alleges rights violations and names categories of actors (judges, police, prosecutors) but provides few specifics	Complaint does not identify who did what, when, or how; allegations are confusing and conclusory	Dismiss for failure to satisfy Rule 8; pleadings do not give fair notice
Ability to assert criminal statute violations in civil suit	Plaintiff cites criminal statutes as bases for relief	Civil complaint cannot state a claim solely for violation of a criminal statute	Such claims are not cognizable in civil complaint and were dismissed
Federal jurisdiction to review state court judgments	Plaintiff seeks relief tied to state-court proceedings and rulings	Federal district courts lack authority to review final state-court determinations (Rooker–Feldman principle)	Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to state court decisions
Amendment opportunity for pro se litigant	Plaintiff seeks to proceed pro se and was given leniency	Court must balance pro se status against futility of amendment	Dismiss without prejudice but grant leave to amend unless amendment would be futile

Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2008) (complaints that are confusing or fail to give fair notice may be dismissed under Rule 8)
Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1969) (court may dismiss pleadings whose true substance is disguised)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual matter showing plausibility)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint must identify who is sued, for what relief, and on what theory)
Bernhardt v. L.A. Cnty., 339 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings)
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (civil suits cannot rest solely on allegations of criminal statute violations)
Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287 (9th Cir. 1995) (federal courts lack authority to review final state-court judicial decisions)
Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants generally entitled to notice and opportunity to amend)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (reminder that district courts should grant leave to amend pro se pleadings unless futile)