(PS) Engelbrecht v. Kern County Tax Assessor
2:17-cv-01229
E.D. Cal.Jun 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tonya Engelbrecht, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging identity theft, fraudulent property creation, money laundering, and financing terrorism against the Kern County Tax Assessor and others.
- Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court granted IFP status based on her affidavit.
- The complaint contained only generalized allegations and requested criminal prosecution and unspecified damages.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous or fails to state a claim.
- The court found the complaint lacked specific factual allegations tying actionable conduct to named defendants and noted a private party cannot bring a criminal prosecution in federal court.
- The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend: plaintiff was given 30 days to file an amended complaint that pleads federal jurisdiction, names proper defendants, and states claims with sequentially numbered paragraphs complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP filing requires dismissal screening | Engelbrecht seeks to proceed IFP and merits court consideration | Court must screen IFP complaints under § 1915(e)(2) | Court granted IFP but proceeded to screen complaint |
| Whether plaintiff may seek criminal prosecution via private federal suit | Engelbrecht asks court to order criminal prosecution of parties | No private right to initiate federal criminal prosecution | Dismissed such relief as unavailable (private criminal prosecution barred) |
| Whether complaint states a claim under Rule 8 | Engelbrecht alleges identity theft, fraud, money laundering, terrorism funding without specific facts or defendant-specific allegations | Complaint fails to identify who harmed plaintiff, how, or which laws were violated | Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim but plaintiff granted leave to amend |
| Whether amendment should be permitted for pro se plaintiff | Implied: seeks opportunity to cure defects | Pro se pleadings are construed liberally; dismissal without leave only if defects incurable | Court allowed 30 days to amend and provided pleading guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for dismissals under IFP statute)
- Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (private parties cannot prosecute federal criminal charges)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (no private right to compel criminal prosecution)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (pleading must give fair notice; courts should not guess who is sued for what)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
- Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (amended complaint generally supersedes original complaint)