Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01535/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01535-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WENDELL COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARK BOESSENECKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-01535-JSC 

SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF 

COMPLAINT; REQUESTS FOR 

INTERIM RELIEF 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 6 

Wendell Coleman sues 32 Napa County employees and officials for alleged violation of 

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. 

(Dkt. No. 6.)1 Having granted Mr. Coleman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see Dkt. 

No. 8), the Court now screens his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes 

that the complaint is deficient for the reasons stated below. 

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 

 The complaint does not contain a plain statement of facts and allegations.2 It instead 

consists of a litany of grievances alleging various abuses by Napa County judges, district 

attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement personnel, corrections officers and staff, probation 

officers, and “contractors of the court.” (See generally Dkt. No. 6 at 4-14.) The alleged 

misconduct—including “conspiracy to kidnap, obstruction of justice, criminal threats, criminal 

libel, fabrication of evidence, kidnapping, false imprisonment, police misconduct, destruction of 

legal documents, Grand theft, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, false arrest, [and] abuse of 

power”—spans multiple years and stems from multiple interactions with law enforcement and 

1

 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 2

 The amended complaint spans over 300 pages and includes state and federal court filings, and 

email and written correspondence. (See Dkt. No. 6.) 

Case 3:20-cv-01535-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 5
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

multiple court hearings for separate civil and criminal matters. (See id.) 

 Mr. Coleman requests injunctive relief, including: 

 An order “to suspend all proceedings taking place in Napa against [him], and 

all other persons . . . being illegally detained.” 

 An order “nullify[ing] ALL restraining orders that have included Estelle 

Coleman.” 

 An order “in support of [Mr. Coleman] exercising article 2 section 4 of the 

United States Constitution and recogniz[ing] this civil claim to be utilized as 

cognizable claim for action for citizen arrest and removal from office of ALL 

members acting under the color of law in association with this [case].” 

 “[A] command . . . to suspend ANY and ALL legal proceedings being 

performed by any judicial officer in association with the Napa court system.” 

 “[A] command . . . temporarily suspending the powers granted to the Napa 

police department and sheriff department.” 

(Id. at 15.) Mr. Coleman also seeks “compensation in the amount of 700 million dollars” from 

various public entities and “1 million dollars each from all defendants named in this civil action.” 

(Id.) 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in 

forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the complaint must allege 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not a “probability requirement” but 

mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To avoid dismissal, a 

Case 3:20-cv-01535-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 5
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

When a plaintiff files a complaint without an attorney, the Court must “construe the 

pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon dismissal, 

selfrepresented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “to amend their 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION 

The Court cannot discern a plausible claim for relief, and the complaint appears frivolous 

to the extent it asserts a far-reaching RICO conspiracy against Mr. Coleman and seeks to 

“suspend” the powers of the Napa County court system and police department. In the absence of 

factual allegations setting forth a plausible claim for relief, Mr. Coleman’s complaint fails. 

Because the underlying complaint fails, the “Request for Ex-Parte Hearing and Immediate 

Injunction” Mr. Coleman filed in conjunction with his original complaint and the “Revised 

Injunction Request” he filed with his amended complaint fail as well.3 (See Dkt. Nos. 2 & 5.) 

Further, the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, bars the preliminary injunctive relief Mr. 

Coleman seeks. Under the Act: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay 

proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where 

necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 

3

 The requests allege, in pertinent part, that Napa County officials and employees have “illegally 

detained, kidnapped, trafficked, labored, and denied [Mr. Coleman’s]” parental rights. (Dkt. Nos. 

2 at 2 & 5 at 3.) Mr. Coleman’s “Revised Injunction Request” asserts that on March 2, 2020, he 

was sentenced in an underlying state court action to 5 years of probation. (Dkt. No. 5 at 5.) He 

requests “an immediate suspension” of that sentence, “and review of the trial by the Appellate 

Court,” as well as an order preventing the victim in that case “from filing additional false 

accusations” against him. (Id. at 4.) Mr. Coleman further requests “an order that allows for 50/50 

custody” of his child. (Id.) 

Case 3:20-cv-01535-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 5
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

The complaint does not support a plausible inference that any of those exceptions apply here. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Coleman’s complaint fails section 1915 review. Mr. 

Coleman may file an amended complaint in an attempt to correct the deficiencies identified by the 

Court within 45 days. The amended complaint must identify Mr. Coleman’s claims and include a 

plain statement of facts in support. If Mr. Coleman fails to file an amended complaint within 45 

days or if the amended complaint still fails to state plausible claims for relief, the Court will issue 

a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of this action. In light of this Order, the 

Court STAYS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (see Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiff need not respond to 

Defendants’ motion. The initial case management conference scheduled for June 4, 2020 is 

continued to July 30, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., Courtroom E, 15th Floor in San Francisco. 

The Court encourages Mr. Coleman to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s 

Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Mr. Coleman can make an appointment in person or by calling (415) 792-8982. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2020 

 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:20-cv-01535-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WENDELL COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARK BOESSENECKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-01535-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on March 27, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Wendell Coleman 

T-3 

PO Box 376 

Newcastle, CA 95658 

Dated: March 27, 2020 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

Case 3:20-cv-01535-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 5