Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03365/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

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

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-3365 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

GARY E. BOLTON, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICERS HALL & SANTANA; 

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-3365 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF No. 1]

INTRODUCTION

Gary E. Bolton, Sr., formerly an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility and now 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. 1 at 4.)1

 His complaint is now before the

court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This order dismisses the complaint, and requires Mr.

Bolton to file an amended complaint. 

STATEMENT

The rather confused complaint alleges the following: Several times, Mr. Bolton’s property was

taken and he later found it at what appeared to be crime scenes. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) On another

Case 3:15-cv-03365-LB Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

In letters submitted after he filed his complaint, Mr. Bolton describes other problems he has

experienced. In one letter, Mr. Bolton wrote that he was almost killed for insurance proceeds, has

had his blood taken and fears that his body parts will be stolen. (ECF No. 7 at 1-2.) He explained

the basis for his knowledge: “I have a gift so I now people were comeing at me paided to set me up.” 

(Id. at 2 (errors in source).) He also explained that he really enjoys porn, and has “a porn problem.” 

(Id.) In another letter, Mr. Bolton wrote that he was “tired” of officers calling him a pervert,

because he has “the right to watch porn if [he] want[s] to.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) He also wrote that his

uncle was trying to have him killed and has paid officers to kill him. (ECF No. 8.) In a third letter,

Mr. Bolton wrote that someone was trying to kill him while he was on the streets, and that the

property receipt the police prepared when he was taken into custody was incorrect in that it omitted

the diamonds and cash he had in his possession when arrested. (ECF No. 9.) 

15-cv-3365 LB

ORDER 2

occasion, he heard a woman calling for help so he jumped a fence to help her and then was

apprehended by Richmond police officers as he jumped back over the fence to exit the area. The

officers “switched” because it was a special agent who apprehended him and officers Hall and

Santana who drove him to the police station, or vice versa. (Id.) Mr. Bolton has “been followed by

special agents” for the last three years and has been “set up so many times” he has “lost count.” (Id

at 5-6.) Mr. Bolton has made reports to the police about checks, diamonds and gold he has found; he

has made reports about dead bodies he has found in trash cans; he was shot and the police said he

was dead but he saved his own life by calling 911; he jumped out of a medic van on the freeway and

fled near Hercules; he wrote to the mayor that he found a check for $4.69 million and tried to turn it

in; and special agents stopped his phone from working and let people with cases try to harm him. 

(Id.)

2

 

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.” 

Case 3:15-cv-03365-LB Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

15-cv-3365 LB

ORDER 3

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).

The civil rights complaint has two major problems and therefore must be amended. First, the

complaint does not allege facts showing the violation of any of Mr. Bolton’s rights under the

Constitution or laws of the United States. Most of the complaint appears to be an effort to provide

innocent explanations for Mr. Bolton’s connections to potential criminal activity. Moreover, the

complaint does not allege a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Second, Mr. Bolton did not

allege any constitutional violations by the defendants listed in the complaint. 

Mr. Bolton will be permitted to file an amended complaint. In his amended complaint, Mr.

Bolton must allege facts showing what each defendant did that amounted to a violation of his rights

under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Mr. Bolton must link each proposed defendant

to his claim by explaining what each 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). 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, 844 F.2d at 634. 

Case 3:15-cv-03365-LB Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

15-cv-3365 LB

ORDER 4

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND. The amended complaint must be filed no later than October 23, 2015, 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: September 23, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03365-LB Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 4