Li v. Warren Police et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Changgang Li
v. 	Case No. 18-cv-880-PB
Warren Police Department
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Changgang Li filed a complaint alleging
various civil rights claims. 	On preliminary review, the court
severed some of Li’s claims and transferred them to the District
of Massachusetts. 	The remaining part of Li’s complaint failed
to state any claims upon which relief could be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 	The court, however,
granted Li leave to amend his complaint to address several flaws
identified by the court. 	Subsequently, Li filed a paper
entitled “Complaint Amendment,” which is now before the
undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Local Rule 4.3(d)(2).
Standard of Review
“The clerk’s office shall forward to the magistrate judge
for preliminary review the initial filings, and any subsequent
amendments to those filings, by all nonincarcerated parties
proceeding in forma pauperis . . . .” 	LR 4.3(d)(2). 	After
preliminary review the magistrate judge may report and recommend
that the action be dismissed because, inter alia, the court
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 9

2
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action is frivolous or
malicious, or it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 	Id.
In considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court asks whether the
plaintiff has made allegations that are sufficient to render his
entitlement to relief plausible. 	Manning v. Bos. Med. Ctr.
Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013). 	The court accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences
in the pleading party’s favor. 	Hamann v. Carpenter, 937 F.3d
86, 88 (1st Cir. 2019).
Background
A. 	Procedural History
In his initial complaint, liberally construed, Li raised
claims against the Belmont Police Department and Cambridge
Police Department, which are located in Massachusetts. 	On
preliminary review, the court severed the claims against the
Massachusetts defendants and transferred the newly opened case
to the District of Massachusetts. 	See Jan. 9, 2019, Order (doc.
no. 9).
In his initial complaint, Li also raised three claims
against the Warren, New Hampshire, Police Department (“WPD”).
The court identified those claims as follows:
1. 	The WPD violated Li’s Fourth Amendment rights by:
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 9

3
a. illegally arresting him in his home, and
b. illegally searching and seizing his wallet.
2. The WPD, by illegally arresting and incarcerating Li,
interfered with Li’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights
to familial association and to parent his children.
3. The WPD violated Li’s Fourteenth Amendment right to
equal protection of the law, in that the WPD discriminated
against him by failing to accept his statement, and by
failing to give him a “clear reply.”
Doc. 11, at 3-4. 	The court reviewed Li’s allegations against
the WPD and found that Li had failed to state any claims upon
which relief could be granted.
Specifically, the court noted that Li had failed to allege
that any “person” committed the acts underlying his civil rights
claims, which were brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Li also
failed to allege facts supporting potential supervisory or
municipal liability theories against WPD. 	See Morales v.
Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208, 221 (1st Cir. 2015); Monell v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Nevertheless, the court granted Li leave to amend his
complaint so he could cure the deficiencies identified by the
court. 	Specifically, the court asked Li to:
 	identify any individual WPD officer or employee
against whom he seeks to bring individual capacity claims;
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 9

4
 	state, with specificity, what each individual
defendant did or failed to do that violated Li’s
constitutional rights;
 	state facts sufficient to support claims against the
WPD under a theory of either supervisory liability or
municipal liability;
 	identify the specific law he describes in his
complaint as the “American Domestic Violence Act”; and
 	state facts to demonstrate that he has standing to
challenge the constitutionality of the law he described in
his complaint as the “American Domestic Violence Act.”
Doc. 12 at 2. 1 	The district judge adopted the recommendations
without objection from Li. 	Doc. 14.
B. Amended Complaint
On September 26, 2019, after the court granted him leave to
file an amended complaint, Li filed an Amended Complaint. 	Doc.
13. 	In the document, Li asserts that he does not understand the
court’s finding in the report and recommendation that he did not
state any claims upon which relief could be granted. 	He
1 It was also recommended that the District Judge dismiss
claims Li attempted to make on behalf of other persons as well
as various unsupported legal conclusions and requests for
relief. 	Doc. 11, at 6-8 (“Li alleges generally that the WPD
deprived him of ‘all of [his] rights,’ . . . insulted and
deceived him, ‘killed’ him twice, . . . , abused its power, and
unfairly enforced the law.”).
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 9

5
surmises that the reason his claims failed was because he asked
for $200 million in damages; accordingly, he suggests that
$200,000 would be “maybe ok.” 	Doc. 13, at 1.
In response to the court’s specific concerns, Li states
that he “can’t identify any individual WPD officer or employee”
against whom he wants to bring individual capacity claims. 	Id.,
at 1. 	Further, Li states that he “can’t even identify if WPD
put me in jail or is the defendant.” 	Id.
As to the issue of supervisory or municipal liability, Li
asserts that “the defendant” failed to provide him an
interpreter; failed to tell him his rights; failed to allow him
to understand “everything about [his] issues”; illegally
searched and seized his wallet; lied to him; and did not ask him
for his opinion, ask for his permission, or go through any legal
procedures prior to taking his child. 	In addition, Li states
that he has “facts and evidence that Weiping Zhang has embezzled
the company’s funds and reported to Defendant, but the defendant
did not [accept] because they are full of discrimination and
prejudice against me.” 	Doc. 13, at 2.
Finally, Li states that he does not understand what the
court means about identifying the specific law he describes as
the “American Domestic Violence Act.” 	Id. 	He requests an
opportunity to answer this issue later.
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5 of 9

6
Discussion
Li’s Amended Complaint, even construed liberally and in
conjunction with his earlier pleadings, fails to state any
claims upon which relief can be granted. 	Furthermore, Li was
provided an opportunity to correct the defects in his complaint,
but he has failed to do so. 	Providing Li another opportunity to
amend the complaint to state claims based on the causes of
action he alleges is unlikely to result in a circumstance in
which the case moves forward. 	Therefore, it is recommended that
the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
A. 	Civil Rights Claims
As the court noted in its prior report and recommendation
on preliminary review, Li’s claims are ostensibly based on
federal constitutional violations and brought through § 1983.
Doc. 11, at 4 (“Li’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
renders persons acting under color of state law liable for
constitutional and federal-law violations.”). 	The only
remaining defendant that Li named in this case, however, is the
WPD, which is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. 	See
Vick v. Massachusetts, No. 17-11531-PBS, 2017 WL 4102454, at *2
(D. Mass. Sept. 15, 2017).
The court provided Li an opportunity to amend his complaint
so that he could identify any individual who committed specific
acts. 	Not only did Li fail to identify any individuals
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 6 of 9

7
involved, he also acknowledged that he does not know whether the
WPD committed any of the civil rights violations he alleges.
Nor does Li allege facts from which any claim of
supervisory or municipal liability for a constitutional
violation could be sustained against the WPD. 	As the court
explained in its prior report and recommendation, “[w]hen
execution of a [local] government’s policy or custom, whether
made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may
fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the
injury, then the government as an entity may be held responsible
under § 1983.” 	Doc. 11, at 6 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694).
While Li generally alleges various acts taken by unspecified
actors that he believes violated his constitutional rights, he
does not allege any facts from which it can be inferred that the
injuries he alleges were the result of the execution of the
WPD’s policies or customs. 	See Soukup v. Garvin, No. 09-cv-146-
JL, 2009 WL 2461687, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 2009). 	In fact, as
noted, Li states that he does not even know whether the WPD was
involved.
B. 	Constitutionality of “American Domestic Violence Act”
In addition to his apparent civil rights claims against the
WPD, Li also indicated in his original complaint that he wanted
to challenge the constitutionality of a law called the “American
Domestic Violence Act.” 	Alternatively, Li might be attempting a
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 7 of 9

8
general challenge to domestic violence laws in the United
States. 	See Doc. 1, at 4-5 (“Change the American Domestic
Violence Act”). 	In its order accompanying the prior report and
recommendation on preliminary review, the court invited Li to
provide a more specific identification of the law he wants to
challenge in an amended complaint and to demonstrate facts
establishing his standing. 	In his amended complaint, however,
Li again fails to identify any specific law and attempts to
defer the identification of the basis for his lawsuit until
later.
The court cannot identify any law called the “American
Domestic Violence Act,” nor will it engage in wholesale
guesswork about the laws to which Li might refer in his
complaint or amended complaint. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
And, as noted, there is no sign that Li will utilize another
opportunity to amend his complaint to fix his claims or to state
any cognizable claim on this issue or any other.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the
district judge dismiss Li’s Amended Complaint without leave to
amend and close the case. 	Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file specific
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 8 of 9

9
written objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
December 16, 2020
cc: 	Changgang Li, pro se
Case 1:18-cv-00880-PB Document 15 Filed 12/16/20 Page 9 of 9