Bolton v. Perales
Filing
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Re: ECF Nos. 1, 8): Re 1 Complaint filed by Gary E. Bolton; Re 8 Amended Complaint filed by Gary E. Bolton. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
GARY E. BOLTON, SR.,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. 15-cv-4689 LB
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 8]
14
E. PERALES; EL CERRITO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
15
Defendants.
16
_____________________________________/
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Gary E. Bolton, currently a pretrial detainee in custody at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se
19
prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Bolton has consented to proceed before a
20
magistrate judge. (ECF No. 7.)1 This action is now before the court for review of Mr. Bolton’s
21
amended complaint. This order dismisses the amended complaint, and requires Mr. Bolton to file a
22
second amended complaint.
23
STATEMENT
24
This is one of several cases Mr. Bolton has filed since May 2015. The other cases are: Bolton v.
25
Hall, No. 15-cv-3365 LB; Bolton v. Andre Tony Miller, No. 15-cv-3505 LB; Bolton v. Chevron, No.
26
27
28
1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the tops of the documents.
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
1
15-cv-4406 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer,
2
No. 15-cv-4518 LB; Bolton v. Ms. Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB; and In re. Bolton, No. 15-cv-5566
3
JD. Some of the documents Mr. Bolton has filed in these actions indicate that he has significant
4
mental health problems. Mr. Bolton currently is “being held at [Napa State Hospital] under a court
5
order” pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370 “to address [his] immediate needs to regain
6
competency to stand trial.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) He is a pretrial detainee on a criminal charge that may
7
result in a Three Strikes sentence. (See ECF No. 3 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No.
8
15-cv-4517 LB.) Staff at Napa State Hospital are treating, or trying to treat, him with antipsychotic
9
medications. (See ECF No. 1 in In re. Bolton, No. 15-cv-5566 JD, and ECF No. 9 in Bolton v Ms.
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150, which allows peace officers and certain other
12
For the Northern District of California
Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB). In March or April 2015, he was taken into custody pursuant to
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
persons to take a person into custody for up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis
13
intervention if the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is gravely disabled or is a danger to
14
others or to himself. (See ECF Nos. 8 and 9 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB.)
15
In the present action, Mr. Bolton filed a complaint, and later an amended complaint. The
16
amended complaint superseded the original complaint, and provided the following statement of his
17
claim:
18
19
20
21
22
A bus driver was threatened and I told the followers I was tired of being followed so I
threatened to sue, because the bus driver was told not to let me on the bus if I did not
pay. I then got the del Norte BART and was still being followed so I called 911. I
called them for help they first searched me then rain my name took me to the police
station. I was scared so I made them keep the handcuffs on, they then took my
money, diamonds, and a houndred thousand dollar insurance policy. I also called 911
and tried to turn in. This is all on the 911 call record. I had a lot of stuff in my bag
and it all was took. They were looking for a diamond ring. On my property clothing
receipt there is no booking number and it is not signed by me.
23
(ECF No. 8 at 3 (errors in source.) The amended complaint listed the defendants as E. Perales and
24
the El Cerrito Police Department. Mr. Bolton alleged that E. Perales “could be a FBI agent that was
25
pretending to be a officer because they do it all the time that is what my last lawyer told me that is
26
why I am here.” (Id. at 2.)
27
28
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
2
1
ANALYSIS
2
A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks
3
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §
4
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
5
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
6
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b).
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only . .
9
. give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
10
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
11
Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to
12
For the Northern District of California
The complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
13
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be
14
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
15
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to
16
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Pro se complaints must be liberally construed. See
17
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
18
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right
19
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was
20
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
21
(1988).
22
The amended complaint has several problems. First, the allegations were at least implausible.
23
The allegations in the amended complaint repeated a portion of a story that Mr. Bolton has presented
24
in other recently-filed actions. When read in isolation, the allegations of the amended complaint in
25
this action appear somewhat unlikely to be true, but when those allegations are read alongside other
26
recent filings from Mr. Bolton, the allegations move further out on the spectrum past implausible
27
and toward the delusional. Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he had diamonds and an insurance policy
28
that were taken, perhaps by the police. In this and other cases, Mr. Bolton has alleged that he has
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
3
1
found many things, including diamonds, a check for $4.69 million, a check for $5.5 million, gold,
2
and dead bodies in trash cans. (See ECF No. 8 in this action; ECF No. 1 at 3, 6 in Case No. 15-cv-
3
3505 LB; ECF No. 1 at 5-6 in Case No. 15-cv-3365 LB.) Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he was
4
followed. In this and other cases, Mr. Bolton has alleged that he has many, many times been
5
followed by unidentified persons and the police, who are trying to kill him. (See ECF No. 8 in this
6
action; ECF No. 1 at 3 in Case No. 15-cv-3505 LB (“I was also po[ison]ed by his works [and]
7
followed by special agents”); id. at 7 (he is in fear for his life because he is in the hospital with the
8
same people who have been trying to kill him on the streets); ECF No. 1 at 5-6 in Case No. 15-cv-
9
3365 LB (he has “been followed by special agents” for the last three years and has been “set up so
policy. In the past, Mr. Bolton has alleged that his uncle, Andre Tony Miller, is trying to have him
12
For the Northern District of California
many times” he has “lost count”).) Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he had a $100,000 insurance
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
killed for insurance proceeds, and has used the police to try to kill Mr. Bolton for that reason. (See
13
ECF No. 1 at 3 in Case No. 15-cv-3505 LB.)
14
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the prisoner litigation screening statute, 28
15
U.S.C. § 1915A, accord judges “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
16
meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
17
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v.
18
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
19
“Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with
20
which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Andrews v.
21
King, 398 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2005) (a case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or importance:
22
having no basis in law or fact’”). Even a complaint that is not actually delusional, but does not state
23
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, is deficient. See Bell Atlantic Corp.
24
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mr. Bolton’s story in his amended complaint, viewed against the
25
backdrop of his earlier complaints, failed to state enough facts to present a plausible claim for relief.
26
Mr. Bolton will be permitted to file a second amended complaint in which he alleges facts sufficient
27
to present a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
28
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
4
1
Second, even assuming for a moment the truthfulness of his story, Mr. Bolton did not allege a
2
constitutional violation based on his encounter with the police. Not every seizure of a person or
3
property violates a person’s constitutional rights, and the amended complaint did not describe how
4
his seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment proscribes “unreasonable
5
searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir.
6
1994). “‘A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth
7
Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.’” Lacey v.
8
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). For an arrest, probable
9
cause exists if “‘there is a fair probability or substantial chance of criminal activity,’” a
officer. Id. (citation omitted). Mr. Bolton may, in his second amended complaint, attempt to allege
12
For the Northern District of California
determination that is made based on the totality of the circumstances then known to the arresting
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
facts showing that his seizure was without probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment.
13
Mr. Bolton also did not allege enough facts to plausibly show a constitutional violation with
14
regard to the property allegedly taken; he was unclear whether a defendant stole the property, the
15
property was taken incident to him being booked into the jail, or the property was taken as part of an
16
investigation. The legal analysis may differ depending on the reason the property was taken. For
17
example, the seizure of property for investigatory purposes must comply with both the Fourth
18
Amendment and procedural due process. See Sanders v. City of San Diego, 93 F.3d 1423, 1428 (9th
19
Cir. 1996); see id. at 1428-29 (in most cases, a seizure that complies with the Fourth Amendment
20
will also comply with procedural due process). In his second amended complaint, Mr. Bolton
21
should explain why the police took his property, whether he made requests to the police department
22
for a return of his property, and whether the items were returned.
23
Third, Mr. Bolton did not identify any constitutional protection infringed upon by being watched
24
and followed, as he allegedly was. In his second amended complaint, he must identify the
25
constitutional right he believes was violated by him being watched and followed.
26
Fourth, Mr. Bolton listed two defendants in his amended complaint, but did not allege what
27
either of them did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights under the Constitution or laws
28
of the United States, as he must to state a claim under § 1983. His allegations that identify
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
5
1
wrongdoers only as “they” and “them” are insufficient to state a claim against either of the named
2
defendants. Mr. Bolton must link each proposed defendant to his claim by explaining what each
3
defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,
4
634 (9th Cir. 1988).
5
Mr. Bolton will be permitted to file a second amended complaint. In his second amended
6
complaint, Mr. Bolton must cure the deficiencies discussed above and allege facts showing what
7
each defendant did that amounted to a violation of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the
8
United States.
9
CONCLUSION
The second amended complaint must be filed no later than February 19, 2016, and must include the
12
For the Northern District of California
For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
caption and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED
13
COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Bolton is cautioned that his second amended complaint will
14
supersede existing pleadings and must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he does not
15
need to plead again any claim the court has dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v.
16
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file the second amended
17
complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2016
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15-cv-4689 LB
ORDER
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?