Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01282/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01282-1/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN W. WOLCOTT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[DKT. NO. 29]

vs.

ROBERT MEULLER; ERIC HOLDER;

KEITH SLOTTER; THE FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; THE

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

OFFICE; DOES 1 thru 500,

Defendants.

On May 25, 2012, Plaintiff Alan W. Wolcott (“Plaintiff”) filed an initial

complaint in the above-captioned matter. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint, alleging causes of action for “mistake,” “fraud,” and “bad

faith.” (Dkt. No. 4.) On September 18, 2012 the Court accepted and docketed

Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” nunc pro tunc to September 14, 2012. (Dkt.

No. 15.) Because the filing lacked proof of service and Plaintiff did not request leave

to file a second amended complaint, the Court did not issue summons on the Second

Amended Complaint and construed the document as an ex parte supplemental filing.

On November 19, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for

“mistake,” “fraud,” and “bad faith.” (Dkt. No. 18.) On February 25, 2013, the Court:

(1) granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for “mistake” and “fraud”

with prejudice; and (2) granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claimfor “bad

- 1 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 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

faith” without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 21.) 

On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 25.) On

July 11, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. (Dkt.

No. 29.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims. 

BACKGROUND

This case involves Plaintiff’s alleged provision of information to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in response to a request made by Defendant Keith

Slotter (“Defendant Slotter”). (Dkt. No. 25, “TAC” ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant

Slotter announced a call for help in his capacity as special agent for the FBI and cohost of the television show “The FBI’s Most Wanted List.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff

alleges responding to Defendant Slotter’s public television offer via telephone to the

advertised phone number. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

In addition, Plaintiff alleges trying to gather information regarding the “James

Whitey Bulger case,” (Id. ¶ 9), as well as leaving several messages for the FBI

asking for a return telephone call, (Id. ¶ 10). Plaintiff further alleges that an FBI

Agent indicated to Plaintiff that FBI Agents, Robert Mueller, and Eric H. Holder

knew that Plaintiff was “in fact the person with the original source of

information/prime mover of, and is the direct cause of James Whitey Bulger’s

capture and successful prosecution thereto.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff asserts three causes

of action in Plaintiff’s TAC: (1) Errors and Omissions Part I; (2) Errors and

Omissions Part II; and (3) Bad Faith. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff requests compensatory

damages in the amount of $2,100,001.00, interest at the APR of 10% per year or

$547.94 per day until Plaintiff is paid in full; and an award of all costs. Plaintiff

further prays for injunctive relief while the above-captioned matter is pending. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

- 2 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). 

A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

In other words, “the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences

from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to

relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. To determine the

adequacy of a complaint, conclusory allegations are disregarded, and a court is to

ask whether well-pled factual allegations plausibly suggest that Plaintiff is entitled

to relief. Id.

DISCUSSION

1. Cause of Action 1 and 2 for “Errors and Omissions”

Plaintiff’s first cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”)

claims “errors and omissions” based on the “Respondent Superior Doctrine of the

Government Code § 9.10 and now amended § 911.4,” under which Plaintiff claims

“the Court must look to the person higher up.” (TAC at 6, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff’s second

cause of action in the Third Amended Complaint alleges “Errors and omissions are

described as knowingly and willingly paying the reward money to the wrong

person.” These allegations mirror the language used by Plaintiff in claims

previously dismissed by this Court with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 4 “First Amended

1

Although the second cause of action in Plaintiff’s TAC includes one additional 1

line not previously included in Plaintiff’s FAC, the Court finds the additional line

immaterial. (Dkt. No. 25 at 6, ¶ 2) (“Year to date, Special Agent in charge Slotter has

breached his public oral agreement with Plaintiff.”). The Court previously construed

Plaintiff’s cause of action as a breach of contract claim and dismissed the claim with

prejudice because the Court lacks jurisdiction over contract claims exceeding $10,000

or for claims covered by 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1) of the Contracts Dispute Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1346(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 21 at 4.) Although Plaintiff adds now that the allegedly

breached contract is “public” and “oral,” these additions do not change the underlying

breach of contract claim previously dismissed by this Court with prejudice.

- 3 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 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

Complaint” ¶¶ 9-10) (“MISTAKE: Under the Respondent Superior Doctrine of the

Government Code Section 9.10 and now amended Code 911.4, the Court must look

to the person higher ip (sic). Mistake is clearly defined and describes a cause of

action by the DEFENDANT(s), each of them. Mistake is described as knowingly

and willingly paying the reward to the wrong person.”) (numbers omitted). To the

extent that the first two causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s TAC were previously

considered by the Court and dismissed with prejudice, (Dkt. No. 21 at 5), the claims

are barred and again DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Cause of Action 3 for “Bad Faith”

The first half of Plaintiff’s third cause of action, for “bad faith,” also remains

unchanged from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Compare (Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 12)

(“Bad faith is defined and described as the rude behavior in the form of Duty Agent

repeatedly hanging up the phone when PLAINTIFF tried to gather information on

the JAMES WHITEY BULGER case.”) with (Dkt. No. 25 at 6, ¶ 3) (“Bad faith is

defined and described as the rude behavior in the form of the Duty Agent; Agent

repeatedly hanging up the phone when Plaintiff tried to gather information on the

James Whitey Bulger Case.”). Plaintiff adds one additional line in the TAC to

support Plaintiff’s claim for bad faith: “Bad faith is defined and described as

destroying or hiding the video of James Whitey Bulger and Alan W. Wolcott with

James Whitey Bulger at the point of sale on Nov. 20 , 2010 @ 10:40 A.M.” th

The Court finds again that this claim is neither well-pled nor plausible. To

withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain something more . . . than .

. . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right

of action.’” Armstrong v. Sexson, 2007 WL 2288297 (E.D. Cal. August 8, 2007)

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 55). Rather, a complaint must “plausibly” show a

Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s interpretation

of the Little Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), as a basis for re-asserting the Court’s

jurisdiction over claims dismissed with prejudice, (Dkt. No. 25 ¶ 3), Plaintiff may not

challenge the Court’s final judgment with an amended complaint. 

- 4 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 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

valid claim. Id. at 557. The Court finds Plaintiff’s additional allegation merely sets

forth Plaintiff’s definition of bad faith. Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts,

including who completed the acts complained of or what the allegedly destroyed

video showed, to support a plausible claim for relief. The Court therefore GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for “bad faith.”

3. Leave to Amend

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss that raises new facts not contained in Plaintiff’s previous complaints. (Dkt.

No. 36.) A motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is

ordinarily “addressed to the four corners of the complaint without consideration of

other documents or facts outside of the complaint.” Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F.

Supp. 1392, 1396 (E.D. Cal. 1994). The Court declines to consider the new facts in

consideration of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC. However, because

the Court holds the allegations of a pro se Plaintiff to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972), the Court concludes that leave to amend should be GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims

for breach of contract, labeled as Count 1 and 2 in the Third Amended

Complaint, without leave to amend;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim

for bad faith with leave to amend;

3. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall do so on

or before January 30, 2014; and

4. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, currently set for

January 3, 2014, is VACATED.

- 5 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 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

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on or by January 30, 2014, this case

may be terminated with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 6 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 41 Filed 12/20/13 Page 6 of 6