1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JACQUELINE VALENTINE, Case No. 25-cv-05607-LJC

8 Plaintiff, FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 9 10 SAN MATEO COUNTY, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Jacqueline Valentine, proceeding pro se, sued San Mateo County, San Mateo 14 County ADA Coordinator Daniel Radovich, and San Mateo Superior Court Judge Sarah Burdick 15 in the Central District of California. ECF No. 1 (Compl.). The case was transferred to the 16 Northern District of California and assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge, who granted 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint pursuant to 28

(e)(2)(B). ECF No. 8. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why her 19 case should not be dismissed for failing to allege the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the 20 matter and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint.

Plaintiff has now done so. ECF 21 No. 9 (First Am. Compl.) (FAC). 22 A district court must dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it 23 determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 24 may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief.”

(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). Courts conducting this review assess whether the 26 complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

, 27 325 (1989). A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim 1 omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 2 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

3 The factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 4 speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). In other words, the 5 Complaint needs to include enough facts, which, assuming they are true, would support the 6 plaintiff’s legal claims. 7 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, violated her 8 First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and violated

, which criminalizes 9 taking mail out of a “post office or any authorized depository…before it has been delivered to 10 person to whom it was directed.” FAC at 2. As Plaintiff is now claiming that Defendants violated 11 federal laws, she has appropriately alleged that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 12 case.1 See

. However, the FAC is otherwise deficient. See Neitzke,

325. As courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires,” Plaintiff may amend her 14 complaint to address the issues identified below. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 15 First, it is not clear who Plaintiff is suing. Although her initial complaint named three 16 defendants, the amended complaint names San Mateo County as the sole defendant. See Compl.; 17 FAC at 1 (identifying, under “Parties,” Jacqueline Valentine as the plaintiff and San Mateo 18 County as the sole defendant). While San Mateo County is the only named defendant in the FAC, 19 Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that “Defendants,” plural, are liable for the misconduct alleged.

at 20 2. To the extent that Plaintiff intended to assert her claims against the three defendants identified 21 in the original complaint, she has not alleged what conduct each defendant is liable for, instead 22 generally claiming that “Defendants” violated the ADA, retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising 23 her First Amendment rights, and denied her due process.

The Court notes that, if Plaintiff 24 intends to assert claims against Judge Sarah Burdick or other judicial officers arising out of 25 “actions taken in [their] judicial capacity,” such claims would be barred by the doctrine of judicial 26 immunity. Moore v. Urquhart,

(9th Cir. 2018). 27 1 Second, Plaintiff’s FAC identifies the laws she claims Defendants violated, but in large 2 part lacks factual allegations regarding Defendants’ conduct. Regarding her ADA claim, she 3 alleges that Defendants “denied Plaintiff’s requests for reasonable accommodations, including 4 electronic filing, remote participation, and alternative service methods, thereby preventing 5 meaningful access to the courts.”

(She further alleges that Defendants violated the regulations 6 implementing the ADA.) While the denial of a request for a reasonable accommodation or 7 modification may certainly be the basis for a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, 8 Plaintiff has not alleged that she was disabled or any specific details regarding her requests or 9 Defendants’ denials. See id.; Updike v. Multnomah County,

(9th Cir. 2017) 10 (explaining that to prove an ADA violation, a plaintiff must show that they are (1) “a qualified 11 individual with a disability,” (2) they were “either excluded from participation in or denied the 12 benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated 13 against by the public entity,” and (3) “such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was” 14 because if their disability). 15 Similarly, Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment 16 rights, brought pursuant to

, are unsupported by non-conclusory factual 17 allegations. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the First Amendment by retaliating against 18 her for “exercising her right to file complaints and petitions.” FAC at 2. To state a claim pursuant 19 to Section 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must allege that they (1) “engaged in 20 constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, … subjected to adverse action by the defendant 21 that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity; 22 and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship between the constitutionally protected activity 23 and the adverse action.” Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2010) (footnote 24 omitted). Although filing “complaints and petitions” could be “constitutionally protected 25 activity,” Plaintiff does not explain what “complaints and petitions” she is referring to, what 26 actions Defendants took after she made her “complaints and petitions,” and why she believes 27 Defendants took those actions to retaliate against her. Id.; FAC at 2. 1 protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by “obstructing her filings, denying 2 accommodations, and depriving her of a fair hearing,” and by “treating her differently from other 3 litigants on the basis of her disabilities.” FAC at 2. Without allegations regarding Defendants’ 4 specific conduct, the Court cannot assess if Plaintiff has plausibly pled her due process and equal 5 protection claims. See Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616

(9th Cir. 2010) (requiring plaintiffs asserting procedural due process claims to 7 allege “deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest and denial of 8 adequate procedural protection”); Nunez v. City of Los Angeles,

, 871 (9th Cir. 1998) 9 (requiring a plaintiff bringing a substantive due process claim to allege, “as a threshold matter, … 10 a government deprivation of life, liberty, or property”); Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 11

, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that complaints asserting “§ 1983 claims based 12 on Equal Protection violations must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that 13 are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent”). Plaintiff’s generalized 14 allegations fail to provide Defendants with “fair notice” of the claims against them and do not 15 raise her “right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,

. 16 Third, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated

, which prohibits 17 interfering with or taking another person’s mail. Again, Plaintiff does not include any details 18 explaining what Defendants did that violated this statute. In addition,

is a 19 criminal law. While the government could charge someone for violating Section 1702, private 20 plaintiffs cannot sue someone for violating this law. Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823

, 1340 n.20 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that “case law supports” that there “is no private 22 right of action” under

). Because Plaintiff “has no private cause of action 23 against” Defendants for the alleged violation of Section 1702, this claim “lacks an arguable basis” 24 in law. Ricalls v. Hinton, No. CV 20-3045,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2020); 25 Neitzke,

. 26 Plaintiff is accordingly ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 27 dismissed by filing a Second Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies identified above by 1 The Second Amended Complaint must include a short and clear description of the 2 || underlying facts—that is, what happened to Plaintiff that led her to file this lawsuit. It must 3 identify which laws Plaintiff believe Defendants violated, and, for each law, explain what each 4 || Defendant did that violated the law and how Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff's Second Amended 5 || Complaint, should she choose to file one, will replace her original Complaint and the FAC, and 6 || may not incorporate allegations of the prior complaints by reference. If Plaintiff does not file a 7 Second Amended Complaint, or if the Second Amended Complaint does not address the defects 8 described above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge may recommend that the case be dismissed. 9 The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to access to the Northern District of California’s 10 || resources for pro se litigants, available online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, when 11 she is preparing her Second Amended Complaint. Guidelines for drafting a complaint, titled 12 || “Writing and Filing a Civil Complaint,” are available online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se- 5 13 || litigants/legal-help-center-templates-packets/. The Northern District’s handbook for pro se 14 || litigants is available online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-handbook/ and hard copies are 3 15 available at the JDC Legal Help Center at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, a 16 15 Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco. The Legal Help Center also offers free legal information 3 17 to pro se litigants. Appointments may be scheduled by calling 415-782-8982.

19 Dated: November 7, 2025 20

7 LI CISN Un States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28