S. Thomas v. Leroy Baca
695 F. App'x 325
9th Cir.2017Background
- S.A. Thomas appealed the district court’s dismissal of his First Amended Complaint (FAC) raising constitutional claims and civil RICO claims, denial of class certification, denial of recusal, and refusal to refund his filing fee.
- Thomas alleged claims against Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and individual defendants (official and personal capacities), and used a former attorney acting as a paralegal (Stephen Yagman) and counsel Marion Yagman in the proceedings below.
- He moved to recuse Judge Manuel L. Real; the motion was denied by Judge S. James Otero, who found any animosity toward Stephen Yagman did not demonstrate bias against Thomas or Marion Yagman.
- The district court dismissed the FAC: it treated claims against officials as claims against the Sheriff’s Department (impermissible under Will), and found the FAC’s RICO allegations conclusory rather than factual, warranting dismissal.
- The district court denied class certification for failure to show Rule 23(a) commonality.
- Thomas’s appeals as to dismissal of constitutional claims and refund of filing fee were deemed waived for failure to brief or cite the record on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to recuse judge | Judge Real’s alleged animus toward Stephen Yagman shows bias warranting recusal | Alleged animus toward Yagman does not equal bias against Thomas or his counsel | Denial affirmed; no evidence of bias toward Thomas or Marion Yagman |
| Dismissal of constitutional claims | Dismissal was erroneous | FAC failed to plead sufficiently; district court dismissal proper | Waived on appeal for lack of argument/citations |
| Civil RICO claims (official capacity) | RICO claims against officials valid | Claims against officials are effectively against the Sheriff’s Dept and barred by Will; government entities cannot form required intent | Dismissal affirmed; official-capacity claims improper and government entities cannot form RICO intent |
| Civil RICO claims (personal capacity) | Individual defendants liable under RICO | FAC allegations are conclusory, lack specific factual allegations required to state RICO | Dismissal affirmed for pleading deficiencies |
| Class certification | Class should be certified based on FAC allegations | Plaintiff failed to demonstrate commonality under Rule 23(a) | Denial affirmed; plaintiff did not identify commonality on appeal |
| Refund of filing fee | Filing fee should be refunded | No support in record/brief to warrant refund | Issue waived for failure to brief/cite record on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobs, 855 F.2d 652 (9th Cir.) (recusal/bias standards)
- United States v. Burt, 756 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir.) (recusal precedent)
- Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. La. Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538 (9th Cir.) (failure to brief issues waives them on appeal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official-capacity suits treated as suits against the entity)
- Pedrina v. Chun, 97 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir.) (government entities cannot form RICO intent)
- N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578 (9th Cir.) (vague, conclusory complaints may be dismissed)