Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00916-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE CREAMER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF TULARE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00916---EPG

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On June 17, 2015, pro se and in forma pauperis Plaintiff Bruce Creamer (“Plaintiff”) filed 

a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff names the following Defendants: City of Tulare, David 

Macedo, Don Dorman, Jerry Breckinridge, Richard Garcia, James Ussery, Frank Furtaw, Greg 

Merrill, V. Medina, Walter Gorelick, Roxanne Yoder, Action Towing, Inc., and an unknown 

number of Doe defendants. The Complaint alleges causes of action including, but not limited to:

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Rights Under Color of Law, 5th Amendment right to

due process of law, Conspiracy, Collusion, Fraud, Obstruction of justice, Abuse 

of discretion, Tort of outrage, Intentional emotional distress, Breach of fiduciary 

duty, Fraud by commission, Fraud by omission, Fraud on the court, False 

imprisonment, Deprivation of rights, Deprivation of Due Process, Breach of 

Contract, Breach of Faithful Duty, Breach of Professional Duty, Breach of Public 

Duty, Breach of Law extortion, Mail fraud, Official misconduct, Criminal 

negligence, Culpable negligence, Criminal solicitation, Schemes to defraud, 

Asserting false and fictitious claims, Abuse of process, Simulated legal process 

under color of law, Fraudulent misrepresentation, Misuse of public office by 

public officers and employees, Constructive fraud, Fraud in the inducement, 

Racketeering activities, Domestic terrorism as defined by title 5, 18 and 42 U.S.C. 

and the California Criminal Codes, Assault, Battery, Breach of oath of office, 

Case 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Trespass to chattels, Trespass vi et armis (trespass with force of arms), Trespass 

de bonis asportatis (trespass for goods carried away), Trespasser ab initio, 

Trespass on the case, Continuing trespass, Permanent trespass, Joint trespass, 

Intentional tort, Personal tort, Negligence, Complicity and failure to prevent 

criminal activity, Outrageous conduct, Misprision, Theft of property, Theft of 

services, Extortion, Coercion, Obstructing of governmental operations, 

Tampering with governmental records, Interfering with judicial proceedings, 

Failure to disclose conflict of interest, Intimidating a witness, Tampering with a 

witness, Terrorist threats.

(Complaint ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the Complaint 

to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

the Court determines that the Complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to 

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the Complaint can be cured by 

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A 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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 663, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir.2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th 

Cir.2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link 

the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; Simmons v. Navajo 

County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020–21 (9th Cir.2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 

Case 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 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

3

1235 (9th Cir.2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 

962, 969 (9th Cir.2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff‟s Complaint is approximately 138 pages long and alleges violations of at least 15 

separate federal statutes and a number of state causes of action against no less than 12 different 

defendants. The Complaint‟s allegations include various citations to the Uniform Commercial 

Code, as well as recitations of the elements of various crimes under title 18 of the United States 

Code. The Complaint also contains a number of factual assertions that appear to relate to a seizure 

of Plaintiff‟s property and/or person in April 2014. Plaintiff details events that arose after the 

alleged seizure, including, for example, a fine that was levied against Plaintiff, a request for 

public records, the submission of a criminal complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 

Department of Justice, and the Attorney General of the United States, and an apparent attempt by 

Plaintiff to file suit in Tulare County Superior Court. The text of the Complaint also contains 

various asides on the nature of the right to privacy in a totalitarian police state. (Complaint ¶¶ 

229-249, ECF No. 1.)

As written, the Complaint is so mired in extraneous facts, issues unrelated to this action, 

legal arguments, legal citations, and unnecessary legalese that it fails to comply with Rule 8(a). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of separately setting forth his legal claims and for each claim, briefly 

and clearly providing the facts supporting the claim so that the Court and Defendants are readily 

able to understand the claims. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 

2000). Plaintiff‟s Complaint therefore fails to state claim for which relief may be granted and is 

dismissed with leave to amend. Although it is not entirely clear which claims form the crux of the 

Complaint, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the applicable legal standards for a Fourth 

Amendment excessive force claim and a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim 

for his information in drafting an amended complaint.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 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

4

A. Excessive Force

Plaintiff is advised that a claim of excessive force in the course of making an arrest may 

be brought as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This claim is properly analyzed under the Fourth 

Amendment‟s objective reasonableness standard. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007); 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). This assessment involves determining whether the force 

was objectively reasonable “in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [the officer],

without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. “Determining 

whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is „reasonable‟ under the Fourth Amendment 

requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual‟s Fourth 

Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Gregory v. 

County of Maui, 523 F. 3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at 

396. The factors the court may consider in this analysis are: 1) “the severity of the crime at issue”;

2) “whether a suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others”; and 3) 

whether the suspect “is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 

490 U.S. at 396; Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 441 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[t]hese factors, however, 

are not exclusive. Rather, we examine the totality of the circumstances and consider „whatever 

specific factors may be appropriate in a particular case, whether or not listed in Graham‟”).

B. Procedural Due Process

“To obtain relief on a procedural due process claim, the plaintiff must establish the 

existence of „(1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of 

the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process.‟” Stamas v. Cnty. of Madera, 795 

F.Supp.2d 1047, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2011), quoting Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2008). “[P]rocedural due process claims do not „deal with the substance of the challenged 

decisions, but with the process by which they were reached‟.” Id., quoting Halverson v. Skagit 

Cnty., 42 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 1994). “The due process clause does not prohibit every 

deprivation by the state of an individual‟s property. Only those deprivations carried out without 

due process are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Halverson, 42 F.3d at 1260. “„Ordinarily, 

Case 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 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

5

due process of law requires [notice and] an opportunity for some kind of hearing prior to the 

deprivation of a significant property interest.‟” Id.

C. Leave to Amend

The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint to address the 

issues identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must bear the 

docket number assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes any earlier complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 

896 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). In other 

words, the amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.

Because Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the claim, twenty-five pages, 

excluding exhibits, are sufficient for Plaintiff to identify his claims and set forth specific facts in 

support of those claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five 

pages in length, and it will be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff‟s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only 

file an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint shall 

be filed no later than January 22, 2016. Failure to file an amended complaint by the date 

specified will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 12/23/15 Page 5 of 5