Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00499/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00499-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

GARY ERIC BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. COSGROVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00499-LB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

[Re: ECF No. 1 ]

INTRODUCTION

Gary E. Bolton, currently a pretrial detainee in custody at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se

prisoner‟s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Bolton has consented to proceed before

a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 2.)1This action is now before the court for review of Mr. Bolton‟s

complaint. This order dismisses the complaint, and requires Mr. Bolton to file an amended 

complaint.

STATEMENT

This is one of several cases Mr. Bolton has filed since May 2015. The other cases are: Bolton 

v. Hall, No. 15-cv-3365 LB; Bolton v. Andre Tony Miller, No. 15-cv-3505 LB; Bolton v. Chevron, 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 8
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 California

No. 15-cv-4406 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff 

Officer, No. 15-cv-4518 LB; Bolton v. Ms. Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB; In re. Bolton, No. 15-cv5566 JD, and Bolton v. Wieder, No. 16-1250 LB. Some of the documents Mr. Bolton has filed in 

these actions indicate that he has significant mental health problems. Mr. Bolton currently is being 

held at Napa State Hospital pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370 to regain competency to 

stand trial. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) He is a pretrial detainee on a criminal charge that may result in a 

Three Strikes sentence. (ECF No. 3 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB.) Staff 

at Napa State Hospital are treating, or trying to treat, him with antipsychotic medications. (See

ECF No. 9 in Bolton v Ms. Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB). In March or April 2015, he was taken into 

custody pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150, which allows peace officers 

and certain other persons to take a person into custody for up to 72 hours for assessment, 

evaluation, and crisis intervention if the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is gravely 

disabled or is a danger to others or to himself. (See ECF Nos. 8 and 9 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff 

Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB.)

Not only has he filed numerous actions, Mr. Bolton is an energetic correspondent. He has filed 

dozens of letters in the actions filed within the last year. Many of the letters, like many of the 

pleadings, repeat the same information and are difficult to understand.

In his complaint in this action, Mr. Bolton alleged that for about five months doctors “forced 

medication and also wrote bad reports.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He received three injections from Ms. 

Karen Doyle. (Id.) “The doctor stated they could shot me every day if they wonted. False report 

the doctor stated I told him I had magic. The doctors wrote false reports to get me sent to a long 

term unit and force me medication. I was also set up and staff used other patients to watch me and 

also tried to give me a battery charge. Also these doctors tried to cover up a attempted murder on 

my life.” (Id. (errors in source).) Mr. Bolton appears to contend that he has a hernia as a result of 

the involuntary medications. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Mr. Bolton wrote on an attachment to his 

complaint: “In my chart I wrote a note stateing I will start takeing the medication. [T]hat is the day 

I found out my mother was sick. My doctors lied to me[;] they said if I take it I could leave soon.” 

(ECF No. 1-1 at 5 (errors in source).) In his attachment, he also complained that his attorney did 

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 8
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 California

not handle his criminal case properly and said he was going to have Mr. Bolton see a doctor. (Id.at 

5.)

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b).

The complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only 

. . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the „grounds‟ of his „entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and conclusions, and 

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Pro se complaints must be liberally 

construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 

48 (1988).

To force antipsychotic drugs on a prisoner or on a detainee awaiting trial is impermissible 

under the federal constitution, “absent a finding of overriding justification and a determination of 

medical appropriateness.” Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135 (1992); see Washington v. 

Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229-30 (1990). In the context of Harper and Riggins, such an invasion of 

the human person can only be justified by a determination by a neutral factfinder that the 

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 8
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 California

antipsychotic drugs are medically appropriate and that the circumstances justify their application.

See Kulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453, 455-56 (9th Cir. 1998); id. at 456 (procedural safeguards 

provided for in Harper may not apply in an emergency, but no such emergency was shown where 

inmate was merely loud and uncooperative). 

The complaint has several problems. First, Mr. Bolton‟s allegations are insufficient to state a 

claim that he has been forcibly medicated. He alleges that doctors medicated him, but does not 

identify who those doctors were, or when the forced medication took place. Additionally, Mr. 

Bolton‟s statement that he wrote a note in his chart stating that he would start taking the 

medication suggests an agreement to be medicated rather than forcible medication. If Mr. Bolton 

wants to try to state a claim that he was forcibly medicated, he needs to identify the particular 

doctors who caused him to be forcibly medicated and the dates on which he was forcibly 

medicated in his amended complaint. If Mr. Bolton means only that the doctors were trying to 

medicate him, but have not been able to do so, he should allege that clearly in his amended 

complaint.

Second, the allegation that Karen Doyle gave him three injections appears to duplicate the 

claim Mr. Bolton is pursuing in Bolton v. Ms. Karen, Case No. 15-cv-5328 LB, in which he 

alleged that Ms. Karen improperly gave him three injections on October 18, 2015. He cannot 

pursue the same claim in two different actions. Mr. Bolton should not repeat that same claim 

against Karen Doyle in his amended complaint in this action.

Third, many of Mr. Bolton‟s allegations are about things that simply don‟t amount to 

constitutional violations. Allegations of verbal harassment or even threats -- such as comments by 

doctors and staff that they could give him injections every day if they wanted or that he would be 

there a long time -- do not state a cognizable claim under § 1983 because “mere words, without 

more, do not invade a federally protected right.” Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 

1986); see also Gautt v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere threat does not amount to 

constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was for purpose of denying access to 

courts compel contrary result). And allegations about things that almost happened -- e.g., the 

doctors allegedly using other patients to watch him and trying to set him up for something bad to 

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 8
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 California

happen to “give him a battery charge” -- do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted if 

nothing occurred that amounted to a constitutional violation. 

Fourth, the action cannot proceed against Napa State Hospital. The Eleventh Amendment to 

the U.S. Constitution bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens 

of another state, or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 

473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state 

agency. See Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California 

Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity); see also Allison v. Cal. Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California 

Adult Authority and San Quentin State Prison not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act).

Napa State Hospital is dismissed from this action because it is an agency of the State of California 

and has Eleventh Amendment immunity against the suit.

Fifth, the Younger abstention doctrine generally requires the federal courts not to adjudicate 

claims for declaratory or injunctive relief that would require the federal court to intrude into 

pending state court proceedings. That sort of interference appears to be what Mr. Bolton seeks 

with his assertions that his attorney is not doing a good job in the criminal case and that Mr. 

Bolton is being guided toward a guilty plea or plea of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity. Under 

principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state 

criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). The rationale of Younger

applies throughout the state criminal proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state 

court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. See Dubinka v. Judges 

of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). Requests for declaratory relief that would 

interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings are subject to the same restrictions that govern 

requests for injunctive relief. See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 71–74 (1971); Perez v. 

Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 86 n. 2 (1971). Younger requires that federal courts refrain from enjoining 

or otherwise interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings where three conditions are met: 

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state 

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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 California

interests; and (3) the plaintiff has the opportunity to raise his federal constitutional concerns in the 

ongoing proceedings. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 

432 (1982); Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223. Here, all three prongs of the abstention test are met. The 

state criminal proceedings are ongoing in Alameda County Superior Court, the criminal prosecutor 

involves important state interests, and Mr. Bolton can raise his claims in his state court criminal 

case. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the States' interest in administering their 

criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the 

considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief”) (citing Younger, 

401 U.S. at 44–45). Mr. Bolton does not make any plausible non-conclusory allegation of 

irreparable harm, bad faith, harassment, or bias of the tribunal that would enable him to avoid 

application of the abstention doctrine. See generally Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53–54 (cost, anxiety 

and inconvenience of criminal defense is not the kind of special circumstance or irreparable harm 

that would justify federal intervention).

In his amended complaint, Mr. Bolton must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for 

liability for each defendant. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., "the defendants"); rather, 

he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to his claim by 

explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights.

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Mr. Bolton is cautioned that there is no 

respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is 

responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only 

upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989). Mr. Bolton is cautioned to take great care to provide a coherent statement of his 

claim(s) in his amended complaint. The court will not read through his many letters to piece 

together a claim for him -- he must set it out in his amended complaint. 

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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 California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 31, 2016, and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Mr. Bolton is cautioned that his amended complaint will supersede existing pleadings and 

must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he does not need to plead again any claim 

the court has dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the 

dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ERIC BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. COSGROVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00499-LB 

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 April 29, 2016, 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.

Gary Eric Bolton ID: NA-212065-7

2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy

Napa, CA 94558 

Dated: April 29, 2016 Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 3:16-cv-00499-LB Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 8 of 8