Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brandie Villegas, representing herself and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a federal civil rights action in the Central District of California arising from San Bernardino Superior Court family-law proceedings over custody, support, and proceeds from the marital residence. She alleged that marital funds were mishandled, that a five-year domestic-violence restraining order was improperly entered against her, and that the state court continued proceedings without her after she became ill. She named her former spouse, two lawyers from the family case, an escrow officer, and a mortgage professional.
The complaint pleaded five counts. Count 1 was a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five Doe defendants described as nonimmune state actors. Counts 2 through 5 were California claims for fraud or concealment, conversion, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against one or more private defendants. Because she sought in forma pauperis status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). These facts are the plaintiff's allegations, not findings.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that none of the five counts stated a claim as pleaded, and it dismissed the complaint with leave to amend rather than entering final judgment. It ruled that allegations against one or more defendants, without saying who did what, are insufficient and amount to impermissible shotgun pleading.
On Count 1, the court found that the plaintiff appeared to complain about how the state trial judge conducted the proceedings, even though she acknowledged seeking reconsideration, disqualification, oversight review, and appellate or writ relief. She identified no responsible defendant, and Doe pleading does not excuse missing facts. The court observed that the alleged deprivation seemed to result from judicial action, for which a judge would ordinarily have absolute immunity from damages. Count 2 failed Rule 9(b) because she did not say who misrepresented or concealed what, when it happened, how she relied, or what duty to disclose existed. Count 3 failed because, although she alleged that $203,426.12 was deposited into a lawyer's trust account under a court order, she did not identify her share, her right to possess it, or any defendant's unauthorized dominion. Counts 4 and 5 failed because she did not identify the defendant, the process misused, the improper purpose, or outrageous conduct causing severe distress.
The court granted leave to file a first amended complaint by November 23, 2026, because it was not absolutely clear that amendment would be futile. It directed the plaintiff to address judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, the possibility that claims seeking review of state-court judgments are barred, and California's litigation privilege. Failure to amend on time will be treated as an election to stand on the original complaint and will result in dismissal with prejudice. The court may also decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims if no federal claim survives.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a screening dismissal with leave to amend, not a final judgment, and the plaintiff may file a first amended complaint by November 23, 2026.
- Complaints that attribute misconduct to one or more defendants without saying who did what are impermissible shotgun pleadings.
- A procedural due process claim built on state family-court proceedings must identify a non-immune defendant, the specific conduct, and the process denied despite available state-court remedies.
- Fraud and concealment claims must satisfy Rule 9(b) by stating who, what, when, where, and how.
- Conversion of money requires a specific, identifiable sum, facts showing the plaintiff's right to it, and a defendant's wrongful dominion over it.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court screening order, so it carries persuasive force only. It shows how a federal court treats a self-represented complaint that recasts a dispute over family-court outcomes as a civil rights claim. The court did not accept the plaintiff's disclaimer that she was not seeking appellate review, because her allegations pointed to relief from adverse state rulings.
Much remains open. The court decided only that the complaint as pleaded is deficient. It did not decide whether immunity, a bar on federal review of state judgments, or the litigation privilege defeats any claim, and it told the plaintiff to address those issues in any amendment. If an amended complaint cannot state a federal claim, the court may decline to hear the state-law counts, which would leave them for state court.