Orlando Sanchez de Tagle v. Hackeem Lee

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION ORLANDO SANCHEZ DE TAGLE, Case No. 25-cv-09008-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AMENDED 10 v. COMPLAINT; ORDER TO ISSUE AND SERVE SUMMONS 11 HACKEEM LEE, Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendant.

14 On October 20, 2025, Orlando Sanchez de Tagle, who is representing himself, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 1. On November 6, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and screening his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dkt. No. 5. With respect to Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s claim for invasion of privacy, to the extent the claim “is directed to the scope of the search Deputy Lee conducted of Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s electronic devices,” the Court found that the complaint’s allegations, liberally construed, are sufficient to meet the low threshold at the screening stage, to state a Fourth Amendment claim. See Dkt. No. 6 at 5-6. However, the Court found that the complaint did not state a plausible claim for false arrest and/or search and seizure without probable cause. Id. at 5. Additionally, to the extent the privacy claim was based on Deputy Lee’s alleged surveillance of Mr. Sanchez de Tagle at various locations, the complaint’s allegations were vague and failed to state a plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 6. The Court also found that the complaint did not state a cognizable claim for perjury. Id. at 6-7. Mr. Sanchez 1 After obtaining an extension of time, Mr. Sanchez de Tagle filed an amended complaint on || December 17, 2025. Dkt. No. 8. The amended complaint asserts two claims—one for unlawful search and seizure and one for invasion of privacy. The amended complaint does not assert claims || for false arrest or for perjury. The Court concludes that Mr. Sanchez de Tagle has voluntarily dismissed those claims from the case. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. || 2012) (en banc) (‘For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But || for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”).

9 Having reviewed the amended complaint, the Court concludes that, for purposes of 28 || U.S.C. § 1915(e), Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s allegations are sufficient to permit him to proceed with 11 this action without payment of the filing fee. By January 30, 2026, Mr. Sanchez de Tagle must || submit a proposed summons to the Clerk’s Office, including an address for service of process on 13 defendant Hackeem Lee.

14 Upon submission of a proper form of summons, the Clerk of the Court shall issue the 15 summons. The U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California shall serve, without || prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint and this order on the defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: January 20, 2026 1 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge