Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARK BOESSENECKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00003-EMC 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Docket Nos. 15-16

Previously, the Court adopted Judge Laporte’s report and recommendation, issued as part 

of a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (providing that a court “shall 

dismiss the case” if it determines that the action is, e.g., frivolous or fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted). More specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice the claims against 

Judge Boessenecker, DDA Van Camp, Officer Moore, and Officer Hess but gave Mr. Garcia an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint against Mr. Marks only. See Docket No. 13 (order). 

Mr. Garcia timely filed an amended complaint. The Court reviews that pleading under § 1915(e).

The amended complaint provides more allegations about Mr. Garcia’s longstanding 

dispute with his neighbor Mr. Hanson and the police’s favorable treatment of Mr. Hanson (over 

Mr. Garcia and his father). The amended complaint also contains new allegations that Mr. 

Garcia’s criminal defense attorney (Mr. Higgins, a public defender) improperly failed to introduce 

evidence “against the alleged victim [Mr.] Hanson” during the state court criminal proceedings 

against Mr. Garcia. Am. Compl. at 2. Finally, the amended complaint contains new allegations 

that Mr. Garcia’s father was defrauded out of an inheritance. The amended complaint contains no 

allegations related to Mr. Marks.

The only amendment permitted by the Court was with respect to claims against Mr. Marks. 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 18 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Because Mr. Garcia has failed to make any allegations against Mr. Marks, all claims against Mr. 

Marks are dismissed with prejudice.

As to the new allegations in the amended complaint, they are improper because they are 

beyond the scope of the amendment permitted by the Court. However, even if the Court were to 

consider the allegations – e.g., if Mr. Garcia were to ask the Court to reconsider its prior order –

they do nothing to change the Court’s prior analysis as to Judge Boessenecker, DDA Van Camp, 

Officer Moore, and Officer Hess. To the extent Mr. Garcia has suggested he now seeks to add a 

claim against his public defender for malpractice, see Zamarron v. Brennan, No. C 91 20443 JW, 

1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13662, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 1992) (noting that a § 1983 claim for 

ineffective assistance of counsel is not viable against a public defender because “[p]ublic 

defenders do not act under color of state law when acting as attorneys for criminal defendants”; 

citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)), or some kind of fraud claim against those 

who defrauded his father out of an inheritance, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (providing that a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where all 

claims over which there was original jurisdiction have been dismissed). Thus, the Court has no 

jurisdiction over such new claims.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice. The 

Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment in accordance with the above and close 

the file in the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 18 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 2