Fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted...
Trying to write the second amended complaint, which basically means, writing the complaint for the third time for the second acceptance. Yes the second acceptance, The claim was initially accepted by Magistrate David T. Bristow then later, upon my request to have it served by the US Marshal which is my right of being Granted En Forma Pauperis, dismissed with leave to amend Judge Christine Snyder.
I am beside myself at this point trying to explain this case. First it's accepted then dimissed with leave to amend, then amended, then dismissed with leave to amend again. This is my Second Amended Complaint.
Its quite simple really, my rights were violated, I am seeking damages. I don't understand the Judges reasoning to not allow me to file this complaint because his reasoning does not take into account my rights were clearly violated thus I am entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C.§ 1983 (commonly referred to as Section 1983).
I am stating a claim for relief based on the fact that as a result of my rights being violated, I have suffered losses on a personal level, financial level, and social level. The emotional duress associated with such loss has been catastrophic. Resulting in all kinds of damages as observed in 42 U.S.C. § 1983that show cause for relief such as Compensatory Damages of the General and Special nature.
Based on my education and experience I should be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a Professional Actor or Athlete or Attorney. Whats the average income for those types of professions and multiply that times five years since 2011 and counting. The average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company made in 2012 was 10.5 million dollars.
A plaintiff may be compensated for intangible, psychological injuries as well as financial, property, or physical harms proximately caused by the wrongful conduct.
1. Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f.2. Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.3. Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.4. The Fair Labor Standards Act limits compensatory damages to unpaid minimum wages and overtime, excluding consequential damages; however, the Act authorizes liquidated damages equal to double the unpaid minimum wages and overtime unless an employer establishes that it acted in good faith and with a reasonable basis for believing that its conduct was lawful. See29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 260. The Truth in Lending Act authorizes in finance charge cases damages equal to double the finance charge, with a minimum recovery of $100 and a maximum recovery of $1,000 and any actual damages. See15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) (different standards and limits apply to other transactions or class actions). Neither statute authorizes an award of punitive damages.5. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCompany v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 903 (1979)).6. See Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 307 (1986); Akouri v. Florida Department of Transportation, 408 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005); Randall v. Prince George's County, 302 F.3d 188, 208 (4th Cir. 2002); Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1997).7. 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1310 (3d ed. 2008) (citing Roberts v. Graham, 73 U.S. 578, 791 (1867)).8. Id.9. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 904 (1979) (noting that in "personal injury cases, harm to earning capacity, expenses for medical treatment and similar items are ordinarily treated as bases for special damages").10. Compare Burlington Transportation Company v. Josephson, 153 F.2d 372, 377 (8th Cir. 1946) (noting in false arrest case that general damages are natural and necessary result of such injuries as are alleged, while special damages are those that are natural but not necessary consequence of act complained of) with Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441, 1451 (2012) (noting that under remedial scheme for common law torts of libel and slander, "special damages" are limited to actual pecuniary loss, which must be specially pleaded and proved, while "general damages," on other hand, cover "loss of reputation, shame, mortification, injury to the feelings and the like and need not be alleged in detail and require no proof").11. See Akouri, 408 F.3d at 1345; Ferrill v. Parker Group, Incorporated, 168 F.3d 468, 476 (11th Cir. 1999).12. Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 164 (5th Cir. 1977).13. Great American Indemnity Company v. Brown, 307 F.2d 306, 308 (5th Cir. 1962).14. Id.15. Black's Law Dictionary 447 (19th ed. 2009).16. Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2005).17. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978).18. Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986).19. In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1977), the Supreme Court established the general rule that students who are subject to a short-term suspension are entitled to due process protection.20. In Carey, the Court also indicated that the plaintiffs would be entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. It pointed to the defendant’s liability for fees as a “by no means inconsequential” deterrent to unconstitutional conduct. Carey, 435 U.S. at 257, n.11. However, in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), the Court, while holding that a nominal damage award made the plaintiff a “prevailing party” for purposes of attorney fees, nonetheless allowed fees to be denied on the basis of limited success. SeeChapter 9.4 of this MANUAL for a further discussion of the Farrar decision.21. Carey, 435 U.S. at 264 n.20. There are limits on a jury’s discretion in awarding damages for emotional distress. A “compensatory damages award [for emotional distress] must bear a reasonable relationship to actual injury sustained; it may not be punitive in nature.” Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 848 (7th Cir. 1989).22. Stachura, 477 U.S. at 302.23. Id. at 303.24. Id. at 305-06.25. Id. at 307 (citations omitted).26. Id. at 308. See also Makin v. Colorado Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1214-15 (10th Cir. 1999) (reversing First Amendment damage award which was “based … on the abstract value of the constitutional right); Silor v. Romero, 868 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the giving of a similar instruction was plain error, entitling the defendant to a new trial even if no objection was made below). 27. See Horina v. City of Granite City, 538 F.3d 624, 637 (7th Cir. 2008) (difficulty in proving abstract damages does not preclude their award, but plaintiff must show that he actually suffered such injuries). The testimony of the plaintiff alone can support the award of such damages. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). 28. Stachura, 477 U.S. at 311 n.14; Carey, 435 U.S. at 265 n.22.29. For example, emotional distress damages are allowed under Section 1983, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), and the Fair Housing Act. Hamilton v. Svatik, 779 F.2d 383 (7th Cir. 1985);Marable v. Walker, 704 F.2d 1219 (11th Cir. 1983). They are not allowed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner in custody from bringing an action for damages "for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custodywithout a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir. 2002). See alsoSearles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 876 (10th Cir. 2001); Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1998).30. Akouri, 408 F.3d at 1345; Williams v. Trans World Airlines, Incorporated, 660 F.2d 1267 (8th Cir. 1981) (noting that medical testimony, although relevant, is not necessary). See also Tucker v. Housing Authority of the Birmingham District, 229 F. App'x 820 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding $100,000 damage award for emotional distress based solely on plaintiff's own testimony).31. In a false arrest case, the plaintiff was not obligated to mitigate his damages by posting bail out of his own funds,Lawson v. Trowbridge, 153 F.3d 368, 376-78 (7th Cir. 1998), but refusing a friend’s offer to post bail violates the duty to mitigate. Gladden v. Roach, 864 F.2d 1196, 1200 (5th Cir. 1989). In the Title VII context, a victim breaches the duty to mitigate only by refusing a job substantially equal to the job from which the victim was fired or for which the victim was not hired. See Ford Motor Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 458 U.S. 219 (1982). A victim is required to seek work in another field only after the unavailability of work in the victim’s chosen field is apparent. SeeWalters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135 (11th Cir. 1986). Attending trade school after diligently but unsuccessfully seeking work does not breach the duty to mitigate, Smith v. American Service Company of Atlanta, Incorporated, 796 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1986), but giving up the search for a job to enroll in law school does, Miller v. Marsh, 766 F.2d 490(11th Cir. 1985).32.McClure v. Independent School District No. 16, 228 F.3d 1205, 1214 (10th Cir. 2000); Tri County Industries, Incorporated v. District of Columbia, 200 F.3d 836, 376-78 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Smith, 796 F.2d at 1431.33. Gill v. Maciejewski, 546 F.3d 557, 564-65 (8th Cir. 2008); Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 823 (10th Cir. 1989);Perry v. Larson, 794 F.2d 279, 286 (7th Cir. 1986); Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 627-28 & n.13 (6th Cir. 1983) (Title VII claim). Although rendered in a different context, National Labor Relations Board v. Gullett Gin Company, 340 U.S. 361, 363-65 (1951), is strong authority in support of application of the collateral source rule to Section 1983 actions. See also Restatement of Torts (2d) § 920A (1979).34.Dailey v. Societe Generale, 108 F.3d 451, 460-61 (2d Cir. 1997) (Title VII claim);Matherne v. Wilson, 851 F.2d 752, 762 (5th Cir. 1988); Daniel v. Loveridge, 32 F.3d 1472, 1477 & n.4 (10th Cir. 1994) (Title VII claim).35. See Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (1987) for a description of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) lump-sum rule.36. See, e.g, 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c) (Medicaid); 106 Mass. Code Regs. 204.135 (Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children).37. See In re X, No. CVCL 93000L866 (Cal. Mun. Ct., Shasta County, Sept. 2, 1993) (failure to structure personal injury award to minimize impact of AFDC lump-sum rule is malpractice).
38. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 538 U.S. at 416.
Punitive Damages as a result of losing my wife, my newborn child, my reputation, my career, and every single opportunity I may have had the since this started in 2011, has been swept out from underneath my feet because of the defamation of character as a direct result of this case. To this day it is impossible for me to pass a basic google search background check with character defamation looming on my name since 2011. No income to report at all. Basically living in squalor and abandonment ever since. Never really having a place to live either, being denied any relief from the department of social services as well and social security. Not even being eligible for an Obama Phone. Holding these specific government officials as defendents in this case. responsible.
38.State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 538 U.S. at 416.
39.Smith v. Wade,461 U.S. 30(1983).
40.Id.at 36 n.5;Newport v. Fact Concerts,453 U.S. 247, 269-70 (1981) (holding that punitive damages underSection 1983are not available against a governmental entity but only against the responsible officials sued in their individual capacity).SeealsoKolstad v. American Dental Association,527 U.S. 526, 535-36 (1999).
41. Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535-39.
42.Id.at 538.
43.Fairley v. Jones,824 F.2d 440(5th Cir. 1987).
44.Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535-39. AlthoughKolstadarose underTitle VII, the standard for punitive damages under Title VII (andTitle I of the Americans with Disabilities Act) is, pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1), identical to the Section 1983 standard.
45.See, e.g.,Hardeman v. City of Albuquerque,377 F.3d 1106(10th Cir. 2004) (discrimination on the basis of race);Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods,339 F.3d 1020, 1041-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination on the basis of race);Romano v. U-Haul International,233 F.3d 655(1st Cir. 2000) ( sex discrimination);Rodriguez-Torres v. Caribbean Forms Manufacturer, Incorporated,399 F.3d 52(1st Cir. 2005) (age and gender discrimination).
46.See, e.g.,DiSorba v. Hoy,343 F.3d 172(2d Cir. 2003) (police brutality);Mathie v. Fries,121 F.3d 808(2d Cir. 1997) (collecting cases);Garrick v.City and County of Denver,652 F.2d 959(10th Cir. 1981).
47.Manganiello v. City of New York,612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (unlawful seizure);Mendez v. County of San Bernardino,540 F.3d 1109(9th Cir. 2008) (unlawful seizure);Rogers v. City of Kennewick, 304 Fed. Appx. 599 (9th Cir. 2008) (unlawful seizure);Morgan v. Woessner,997 F.2d 1244(9th Cir. 1993) (unlawful service);Creamer v.Porter,754 F.2d 1311(5th Cir. 1985) (unlawful search);Clark v. Beville,730 F.2d 739(11th Cir. 1984) (arrest without probable cause);Smith v. Heath,691 F.2d 220(6th Cir. 1982) (unlawful arrest).
48.See, e.g.,Wade,461 U.S. 30;McKinley v. Trattles,732 F.2d 1320(7th Cir. 1984);Hendrickson v. Cooper,589 F.3d 887(7th Cir. 2009);Stokes v. Delcambre,710 F.2d 1120(5th Cir. 1983);Furtado v. Bishop,604 F.2d 80(5th Cir. 1979).
49.Kunz v. DeFelice,538 F.3d 667(7th Cir. 2008);Cooper v. Dyke,814 F.2d 941(4th Cir. 1987).
50.See, e.g.,White v. McKinley,605 F.3d 525(8th Cir. 2010);Washington v. Kirksey,811 F.2d 561(11th Cir. 1987);Busche v. Burkee,649 F.2d 509(7th Cir. 1981);Hardeman v. City of Albuquerque,377 F.3d 1106(10th Cir. 2004).
51.Seecases compiled inJones v. City of Key West, 679 F. Supp. 1547 (S.D. Fla. 1988).
52.Romanski v. Detroit Entertainment, L.L.C.,428 F.3d 629, 645-50 (6th Cir. 2005) (approving punitive damages of $600,000 where only $279.05 in compensatory damages were awarded);Williams v. Kaufman County,352 F.3d 994, 1016 (5th Cir. 2003) (approving $15,000 in punitive damages on a nominal damages award of $100);Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corporation,271 F.3d 352, 359 (2d Cir. 2001) (Title VII);Alexander v. Riga,208 F.3d 419, 430-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (Fair Housing Act);Green v. McKaskle,788 F.2d 1116, 1124 (5th Cir. 1986).
53.Philip Morris USA v. Williams,549 U.S. 346, 353-54 (2007) (punitive damages based in part on harm to non-parties are takings without due process);BMW of North America, Incorporated v. Gore,517 U.S. 559(1986);Honda Motor Company v. Oberg,512 U.S. 415, 430-32 (1994). InState Farm Mutual v. Campbell,538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003), the Court suggested that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” The Court did, however, recognize that where the compensatory damages were very small, a higher ratio might be necessary.See, e.g., Romanski, 426 F.3d at 645-50;Williams, 352 F.3d at 1016.
So how have I survived one may ask? My answer is simple. Through the power of Divine Providence and Divine Intervention. I was NOT put on this earth to be a failure or a disgrace, rather, a shining beacon of light for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in one nation, under God. My Manifest Destiny by Divine Providence is living proof that the Justice System in this country can be used to protect it's citizens from having its rights violated.
The following link serves as some of the evidence to show this in existence still today:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nick+Ucci
A portrait painted by a known felon Alex Thompson aka Venice311.org:
http://midtownla.org/alex-thompson-convicted-felon/
The police allowed this woman into my house to take pictures of my personal legal documents and post them on the internet in a defaming way. She publicized wild accusations about me referring to me as crime, grime, and slime. Alleged crimes I was acquitted of at trial, found innocent of, not convicted, unanimously by a jury of my peers, twice. Yet do I see a story recanting these accusations? No I do not.
My life was ruined by this woman through the use of the police, who went along with it, and the DA who also went along with it.
What price do you put on your family, your reputation, and your career? How much is that worth?
Who is responsible? In my opinion, Alex Thompson, Every single police officer involved with the execution of my multiple arrests resulting in acquittal and/or dismissals as well as Every Judge and Magistrate who denied my claim until the relief I deserve is either granted or a Jury trial is made to decide.
Lastly, I hold the LADA office responsible for maliciously prosecuting said cases, six in total, one other case was dismissed by the DA itself after their main witness admitted to several federal felonies at the pretrial. Which resulted in huge losses of my personal property confiscated and not returned. Also the LAPD Department of Internal Affairs Special Investigative Unit along with the Inspector Generals Office for failing to acknowledge my claim as a result of their one year investigation as well as failing to provide the case file requested cf - 0011333.
I requested the court subpoena the case file CF-001133 from the LA Inspector Generals office whose one year investigation, resulted in a file three inches thick and a response to me stating my claims are unfounded in concurrence with the LAPD SIU Investigation claim. All the answers to all the questions in this case are in that report. Yet the court's response was it is not involved in the discovery process? How am I to provide details the court asks for if it wont grant me the evidence being held by the defendant?
Additionally the DA rejected only one case when again, the police came into my house without a warrant, seized property, the DA dismisses the case, my property never returned. With the two acquittals at trial the DA dismissing a case and the Judges in several other cases ultimately dismissing the cases at arraignment, 18 felonies in total over 6 separate arrests, resulting in approximately $60000 paid out to bail bondsmen...
Ultimately causing me to lose everything I own each time n am wrongly arrested, incarcerated and maliciously prosecuted. Over six times in a row not to mention being detained and harassed on multiple occasions.
Not to mention my property was destroyed without due process when the police forced me from my home without a warrant to allow workers to destroy my property and Alex Thompson to come into my house and take pictures of private legal documents and private personal affects.
12.Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527 (1981).
13. The Court later ruled that§ 1983was unavailable to redress an intentional property loss framed as a deprivation of due process.Hudson v. Palmer,468 U.S. 517 (1984)(intentional but random destruction of property during prison cell search). Still later, it held that there couldneverbe a negligent random deprivation of due process, even if state law provided no post-deprivation remedy.Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327 (1986);Davidson v. Cannon,474 U.S. 344 (1986). In these cases, reflecting the court’s antipathy to prisoner suits, injured prisoners were denied a federal remedy even though they could not sue the prison for negligence under state law.
14.Zinermon v. Burch,494 U.S. 113 (1990).Zinermonalso held that theParratt v. Taylorrule (that§ 1983is unavailable to redress random unauthorized deprivations of due process) applies to deprivations of liberty as well as property interests, but cannot be used to bar claims based on the deprivation of other substantive constitutional rights.
15.SeeRochin v. California,342 U.S. 165, 169, 175 (1952), the prototypical “police brutality” case in which the violations were said to have “shock[ed] the conscience.”
16.See, e.g.,Eisenstadt v. Baird,405 U.S. 438 (1972)(access to contraception);Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113 (1973)(right to choose to have or not have an abortion);Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)(right to live with family members); andCruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health,497 U.S. 261 (1990)(right to refuse medical treatment). This survey by no means exhausts the scope of the interests protected by substantive due process.
Now
I honestly can't give you a price for someones life being put into ruin. Based on the information provided by the following spreadsheet,
I deduced an amount of $7 million to be somewhere in the middle of claims already awarded, in light of the facts of this case and the plantiff suffering such great losses on every level recognized as having right to relief by Section 1983.
As an example of the deprived income losses, Here is a list of my Collegiate Alumni and their current positions in the work force today.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ay2l7p33yEBx3dG8Kx75dve0v8NSrVvPVCUuU8N27s/edit?usp=sharing
This Second Amended Complaint is a request for the relief of $7,000,000 US Dollars to satisfy personal, professional, and social losses since the first false arrest was made in 2011 and carries through to this day. Five years in total of no income, no assistance, and no quarter being given and the emotional duress associated with having everything you love taken away repeatedly, continually, to this very day and can never be replaced, with no justice in sight except this.
Or a demand for jury trial.
In addition to the request for service by the US Marshals to the defendents LAPD, LADA, Charlie Beck, Alex Thompson, and the United States Goverment, I would also ask the court to appoint an attorney at this time.
Case No. CV 15-08386-CAS (DTB)