Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00752-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA MAY BOYER, DONNA JEAN

ROWE-WILLIS, TROY “J” WILLIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANGELA Y. ARMSTRONG, in her

private capacity, CHRIS LEWIS, in

his private capacity, R. STEVEN

LAPHAM, in his private capacity,

et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-05-0752 DFL PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-o0oDefendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Plaintiffs have filed neither an opposition nor statement

of non-opposition to defendants’ motions as required by E. D.

Cal. L. R. 78-230(c) (opposition shall be filed not less than 14

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 20 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 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

2

days preceding the hearing), nor complied with this court’s June

30, 2005, order directing that any opposition be filed by October

1, 2005. 

As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve this matter, I

vacate the hearing scheduled for October 26, 2005, and issue

these findings and recommendations.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in San

Joaquin County Superior Court April 8, 2005, alleging violation

of their civil rights for an allegedly illegal search and seizure

at plaintiffs’ Lodi residence on January 28, 2004. Defendants

are R. Steven Lapham, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Angela

Armstrong, an FBI agent, and Chris Lewis, an investigator for the

California Department of Insurance. Defendants removed this

action to this court on April 18, 2005; on June 30, this court

denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. 

On July 18, 2005, plaintiff Donna Jean Rowe-Willis was

arraigned on felony counts of conspiracy, mail fraud and money

laundering. United States v. Kalfeek et al., S Crim. 050128 LKK

(E.D. Cal.). Willis is one of eight defendants charged with

operating a company offering fraudulent automobile liability

insurance. The criminal case remains at an early stage with the

next status conference set for January 10, 2006. No charges have

been filed against the other plaintiffs in this action. 

The federal defendants and state defendant moved

separately to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s lack of

opposition to defendants’ motions is properly construed as

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 20 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 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

3

acquiescence thereto. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c), 11-110, and

83-183. Dismissal is also warranted on the merits. 

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true,

read the complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff

the benefit of every reasonable inference that appears from the

pleading and argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of

facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. 

Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks

International Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn,

373 U.S. 746, 754, n. 6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984). 

A section 1983 action alleging illegal search and seizure

of evidence upon which criminal charges are based does not accrue

until the criminal charges have been dismissed or the conviction

has been overturned. Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th

Cir. 2000). The evidence seized from plaintiffs’ home–primarily

computers, computer disks and programs, and financial documents

and records–appear essential to the resolution of the criminal

charges against Willis and her codefendants. Accordingly, both

Willis and the other plaintiffs in this action are premature, at

best, in pursuing a civil action challenging the legality of the

subject search. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motions should be granted and

this action dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 20 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 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

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00752-GEB-PAN Document 20 Filed 11/10/05 Page 4 of 4