Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00642/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00642-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*

 The complaint in this case was initially filed on January 31, 2007. At the case management

conference held on July 5, 2007, defendants informed the Court their belief that plaintiff had been arrested and

was in state custody. Defendants thereafter informed the Court that plaintiff was (and is) being held at the West

County Detention Facility in Richmond, California. All pleadings and court orders have subsequently been

served on plaintiff at the West County Detention Facility. A second copy should also be timely mailed to the

original service address.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CITY OF

EMERYVILLE, MICHELLE JONES, STEVE

HARDISTER, BONNIE HARDISTER,

RICHARD LUECK, EMERYVILLE POLICE,

THOMAS TOLER d/b/a TOLER BAIL

BONDS, ELDON BILL BOLIN, SHERI

McNAMARA, GARY McNAMARA,

CHRISTOPHER LAVALLEE, and DOES

1–100, individually and/or as employees or

agents of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY or

CITY OF EMERYVILLE,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00642 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this civil rights action, plaintiff Robert Jones is proceeding pro se. Defendants City

of Emeryville, Emeryville Police Department, and Richard Lueck have moved to dismiss the

complaint. This order finds that defendants’ arguments have merit. Accordingly, the motions

to dismiss are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

*

STATEMENT

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Plaintiff’s complaint contains a confusing recital of facts. This order now briefly

summarizes the complaint’s allegations.

Plaintiff was formerly married to defendant Michelle Jones. Their marital relationship

allegedly suffered due to her abuse of Valium and alcohol. According to the complaint,

plaintiff’s wife made constant threats to call 911 to get him arrested, which she did on at least

one occasion (Compl. ¶¶ 18–22, 24, 28).

After plaintiff and Jones divorced, plaintiff obtained room, board, and financial

assistance from his friend, defendant Christopher Lavallee. Plaintiff alleges that Lavallee

abused alcohol and drugs, including Valium and cocaine, and needed treatment for substance

abuse. One night, after drinking heavily and using cocaine, Lavallee allegedly attempted to

commit suicide by cutting his arm with a razor blade. Plaintiff alleges that the next day,

Lavallee revealed that he was having trouble dealing with stress resulting from a recent

“mistake” involving a secret homicide. Lavallee allegedly made an implicit threat to kill

plaintiff to protect his secret (Compl. ¶¶ 23–25).

At some unspecified point in time, plaintiff moved back to his own home in Bethel

Island, California. At 6:30 a.m. on January 31, 2005, plaintiff made a telephone call to the

Emeryville Police Department to advise law enforcement that Lavallee had attempted to commit

suicide. Plaintiff allegedly hoped that his telephone call would result in Lavallee receiving

treatment. Two hours later, plaintiff received a telephone call from the Contra Costa County

Sheriff’s Department to confirm his identity and placement of the call to the Emeryville Police

Department (Compl. ¶¶ 26–27).

Plaintiff looked out his window and discovered that his home was surrounded by SWAT

personnel armed with high-powered rifles. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department was

apparently acquainted with plaintiff and the firearms kept at the residence. The sheriff’s

deputies had visited the property on several occasions, allegedly as the result of telephone calls

placed by Michelle Jones while she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Plaintiff

alleges that Michelle Jones may have instigated the January 2005 incident by making a false

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

911 call to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department while intoxicated or under the

influence of drugs (Compl. ¶¶ 27–28).

Plaintiff began negotiating with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s negotiators. Plaintiff

disabled his firearms and went outside to “show them that he was okay.” His home, however,

remained under “siege.” After coaxing plaintiff down the stairs of the house, several deputies

forcibly took plaintiff down and arrested him. In the process, they allegedly injured his leg,

shoulder, and one of his teeth. They also allegedly seized his firearms and humiliated him. The

complaint also alleges that since the January 2005 incident, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s

deputies have harassed, assaulted, and pointed firearms at him “in the towns of Rodeo, Bethel

Island, Martinez and Oakley,” resulting in “grave injury and near death” (Compl. ¶¶ 30–32).

The complaint names as defendants the City of Emeryville, the Emeryville Police, the

County of Contra Costa, nine known individuals, and up to a hundred Doe defendants. It

alleges the following claims: (1) violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for

unlawful arrest against all defendants; (2) violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983

for unlawful search against all defendants; (3) violation of civil rights pursuant to California

Civil Code 52.1 for unlawful arrest against all defendants; (4) violation of civil rights pursuant

to California Civil Code 52.1 for unlawful search against all defendants; (5) intentional

infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (6) false arrest against all defendants; (7)

assault and battery against the Doe defendants, individually and as employees of Contra Costa

County; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; and (9) trespass

against the Doe defendants, individually and as employees of Contra Costa County. 

Defendants City of Emeryville and City of Emeryville Police Department jointly filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as well as a motion to strike portions

of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f). Individual defendant Richard Lueck also moves to

dismiss the complaint. 

ANALYSIS

A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim can be granted only if “it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). “All allegations of

material fact [must be] taken as true and construed in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. 

However, “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136,

1140 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff Williams is prosecuting this action in propria persona. The Court therefore will

construe his complaint liberally. The ultimate issue presented is whether it appears beyond

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to

relief, even when his claims are liberally construed. See Ortez v. Washington County, State of

Or., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting standard for motions to dismiss against pro se

plaintiffs). 

With respect to defendant Lueck and the Emeryville defendants, the complaint is

virtually silent as to any wrongdoing by these defendants. This order holds that because neither

Lueck nor the Emeryville defendants can be shown in this complaint to have harmed plaintiff,

defendants’ motions to dismiss must be granted.

The complaint here explicitly references defendant Lueck only twice. Neither reference

alleges any facts that would suggest wrongdoing by Lueck. First, it states (Compl. ¶ 11): 

Defendant RICHARD LUECK (hereinafter “RICHARD”) is an

individual, who at all times relevant herein, was [a] THOMAS

TOLER, dba Bail Bonds, (hereinafter “THOMAS”) is an

individual, who at all times relevant herein, was an individual

and/or acting as an agent of [Contra Costa County] and/or [City of

Emeryville]. 

Later, the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶ 33): 

The CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT

have joined MICHELLE JONES, STEVEN HARDISTER,

BONNIE HARDISTER, RICHARD LUECK, EMERYVILLE

POLICE, THOMAS TOLLER, dbd TOLER BAIL BONDS,

ELDON BILL BOLIN, SHERI McNAMARA, GARY

McNAMARA, and DOES 1–100 inclusive in a conspiracy by to

suppress plaintiff ROB from enjoying his Civil Rights. These

persons and organizations have continuously interfered with

Plaintiff ROB’s present and prospective economic advantage. 

The full reports, discovery and trial examination will prove

repeated acts of slander, libel and criminal conspiracy by all

named defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Likewise, the City of Emeryville and the Emeryville Police Department are barely

mentioned in the complaint. The first reference merely makes general allegations against the

Emeryville defendants (Compl. ¶ 7):

Defendant, EMERYVILLE POLICE, is a city

governmental agency organized and existing pursuant to

the law and policies of defendant CITY, which

promulgated, encouraged, administered, and/or permitted,

the policies, practices and procedures under which the

individual defendant employees committed the acts or

omissions complained of herein . . . 

Other individual defendants are referenced as acting as agents of Emeryville, but the

complaint does not provide any facts indicating that these other defendants had any connection

at all with the Emeryville defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 8–15). There is only one mention of the

Emeryville Police in the factual recitation in the complaint — when plaintiff called the

Emeryville Police Department on January 31, 2005. Thus, the only direct connection

Emeryville has to the facts of this case, at least as far as the complaint alleges, is when it

received that phone call (Compl. ¶ 27). Plaintiff’s allegations permit the inference that after

receiving the call, the Emeryville Police Department notified the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s

Office, which then responded to the incident (ibid.). 

The complaint here utterly fails to apprise movants of what harm they allegedly did to

plaintiff. In such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a]lthough a pro se

litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those

pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice

of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th

Cir. 1995). The complaint here has not met that minimum threshold with respect to Lueck and

the Emeryville defendants. Dismissal of the complaint is warranted.

In response to the instant motions, plaintiff filed an “opposition” that alleges more facts

against the Emeryville defendants and Lueck. The opposition alleges that the Emeryville Police

Department failed to investigate fully the substance of plaintiff’s call — a warning regarding

the attempted suicide of Lavallee. The opposition also alleges that the Emeryville Police

Department notified the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department of plaintiff’s telephone call. 

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

As to defendant Lueck, the opposition alleges that in his realty business, he sold homes to

defendant Lavallee. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Lueck communicated slanderous and

libelous statements about plaintiff “to other realtors, potential buyers and his office staff and

vendors” (Opp. 2–3). The opposition does not explain how the allegations in the instant

complaint are legally sustainable for pleading purposes.

It is difficult to see how these additional facts would cure the pleading deficiencies in

the complaint. As to the Emeryville defendants, plaintiff has yet to show how any act or

omission by the city or the police department contributed to the harm that plaintiff allegedly

suffered. As to defendant Lueck, the misconduct alleged appears to relate to his business as a

real estate agent, not as a person acting under color of state law, a requirement in a suit brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 

Despite all these problems, plaintiff must be given at least one more chance to amend

his complaint. “[D]ismissal is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460

(9th Cir. 1980). Here, it remains possible that amendment could cure the pleading deficiencies. 

Plaintiff must, consistent with Rule 8, make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief” as against defendant Lueck and the Emeryville defendants.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The amended

complaint should be filed by AUGUST 31, 2007. The hearing on these motions, currently

scheduled for AUGUST 2, 2007, is VACATED. Because this order grants the motions to dismiss,

it need not address the Emeryville defendants’ motion to strike, which is moot.

Plaintiff, in fairness, must be warned that there is no right to repeated amendments. As a

pro se plaintiff, he is being given liberal leave to amend. His next pleading, however, should

set forth his best case. He should not expect to be able to “fix” yet again any pleading

shortfalls.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00642-WHA Document 60 Filed 07/30/07 Page 6 of 6