Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00996/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00996-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 9/27/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, ET AL.,

 PLAINTIFFS,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL.,

 DEFENDANTS.

Case Number C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS

TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF

OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING

MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON

BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND AND WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 1

[Docket No. 3, 4, 6, 10]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Clive Boustred (“Boustred”) has filed a pro se complaint on behalf of himself,

his two minor sons (RCF, elsewhere referred to as RCB, and WFB), and two corporations owned

by Boustred (InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada and Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada). The complaint is sixtyCase 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 9
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

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

three pages in length and includes numerous specific and general allegations. Boustred filed the

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that his Second, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth,

Tenth, and Eleventh Amendment rights have been violated, and he also makes reference to the

First, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, he has listed twenty-one specific

claims for relief, labeled as follows: attempted murder, kidnap, hostage taking, conspiracy to

commit murder, obstruction of justice, fraud, acceding to fraud, malicious prosecution, libel,

slander, trespass, nuisance, acting without subject matter jurisdiction, child abuse and

endangerment, assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful search, unlawful

seizure, and grand theft auto. He also claims that the alleged events have ruined his businesses. 

He claims millions of dollars of damages, itemized for specific harms. He requests an

opportunity to conduct depositions so that he can identify claims against specific defendants. 

Boustred has alleged all of his claims against all of the named defendants. These include

the County of Santa Cruz, County of Placer, County of Marin, State of California, their

representatives, and twenty-six individuals. The individual defendants include: Anamaria

Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Gregor Smith, Robert Frandeen, Vicki Parry (attorney for

Anamaria Boustred), Paul Meltzer (former attorney for Clive Boustred), eight employees of the

Santa Cruz Sheriff’s department, three Santa Cruz Superior Court Judges, a Placer County

Superior Court Commissioner, two employees of the Santa Cruz District Attorney’s office, the

Placer County District Attorney, two employees of the Santa Cruz Child Protective Services

office, one employee of the Santa Cruz Woman’s Crisis Center, and California Attorney General

Bill Lockyer. Genworth Financial is not listed in the initial list of defendants. 

The following is a brief summary of Boustred’s complicated allegations, with additional

emphasis on allegations relating to the four moving defendants. Because Boustred is proceeding

pro se, his claims understandably are not set forth with the clarity one would expect from an

attorney. Apparently, the marriage between Boustred and his wife, Anamaria Boustred, has been

or is in the process of being dissolved. There appears to be significant and painful conflict over

the custody of the Boustreds’ two minor children, RCF/RCB and WFB. Anamaria Boustred is or

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 9
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

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

has been engaged in a romantic relationship with Stefan Tichatschke (“Tichatschke”).

Boustred alleges in his opposition to the instant motions that in February 2003, in

response to actions by Vicki J. Parry, an attorney representing Anamaria Boustred, a court voided

an order that prohibited Tichatschke from contact with the two minor children. Boustred alleges

that Anamaria Boustred and Tichatschke, enabled by the voiding of this order, created a

“dangerous situation” by leaving WFB, then 3 years old, in the middle of a ski run. Boustred

alleges that when he came to get his son, Tichatschke attempted to start a fight with him. 

Boustred then took both of his sons to Santa Cruz.

Boustred states in his opposition papers that on the following day, March 10, 2003, he

went to Santa Cruz Superior Court, where he filed for a temporary restraining order “prohibiting

his ex-wife from causing dangerous situations for the children and making false police calls.” 

Boustred believes that Anamaria Boustred and Tichatschke were trying to frame him and creating

a false record in preparation for the dissolution proceedings. He alleges in his complaint that

when he and his two sons returned home, they were met by Santa Cruz County sheriffs, who “lay

in wait for and ambushed Petitioners on their private property and shot at Petitioners from a point

blank range of five to seven feet.” He alleges that was held in his garage, handcuffed, and then

detained in a police car. Boustred alleges that the police kidnapped his sons. Boustred states that

he was then falsely accused of assaulting an officer and taken to jail.

Boustred believes that lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and county officials are engaged in a

conspiracy against him in order to cover up the attempted murder of himself and his children by

the police. He alleges that he has been maliciously prosecuted on more than one occasion, was

not given access to an attorney, that evidence favorable to him was improperly excluded, that

documents were kept from him while he was in jail, and that bail was set much higher than was

allowed.

 Boustred also alleges that his rights with respect to his children have been violated. He

states that “Santa Cruz Superior Court judges in complete and utter violation of my constitutional

rights continue to hold my children hostage.” He alleges that Tichatschke should not have access

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 3 of 9
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

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

to his children, that a legal representative has been appointed for his children in violation of his

rights, and that this attorney has said libelous things about Boustred regarding Boustred’s

parenting capabilities. 

Boustred also alleges in his opposition papers that Anamaria Boustred stole from his

office a life insurance policy renewal notice. He claims that Anamaria Boustred renewed a

million-dollar life insurance policy on Boustred’s life naming herself as the beneficiary. 

Boustred believes that this life-insurance policy further motivates the conspiracy against him. He

alleges that Genworth Financial refuses to cancel the life insurance policy and that the continued

existence of the policy puts his life in danger.

Finally, Boustred alleges that the Santa Cruz Superior Court refuses to file his pleas and

motions, has not allowed him to conduct depositions, and has improperly sanctioned him.

Four defendants have filed motions to dismiss and motions for a more definitive

statement. These defendants are (1) Paul Meltzer (“Meltzer”), who represented Boustred in

criminal proceedings before the Santa Cruz Superior Court, (2) Vicki Parry (“Parry”),

representing Anamaria Boustred in an ongoing family law proceeding before the Santa Cruz

Superior Court, (3) Angelica Glass (“Glass”), an employee of Santa Cruz Child Protective

Services, and (4) Genworth Financial, the insurance company that issued the life insurance policy

for Boustred. Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds. First, they assert that the complaint

should be dismissed pursuant to the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that a

complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief.” Second, they assert that it should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Three of the

defendants also request that claims brought by plaintiffs RCF/RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and

Get It Real should be dismissed because these plaintiffs lack capacity to sue. Additionally, all

four moving defendants have filed motions for a more definitive statement pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e). Boustred opposes the motions to dismiss and requests an

extension of time to respond, prepare his case, and obtain counsel. 

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 4 of 9
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

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A court may dismiss a 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.” Hishon v. King &

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); see also Argabright v. United States, 35 F.3d 472, 474 (9th

Cir. 1994). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and

the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Argabright, 35 F.3d at 474. The pleading of a pro se

litigant is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to be

afforded the benefit of any doubt. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi v.

Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has considered Boustred’s allegations in the light most favorable to him. As

presently framed, Boustred’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

against moving defendants Meltzer, Parry, Glass, and Genworth Financial. Boustred makes

sweeping conclusory allegations against all defendants without making specific allegations

against any of the four moving defendants. Although Boustred offers several specific allegations

against these defendants in his opposition to the instant motions, these allegations were not

included in Boustred’s complaint. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the allegations made by

Boustred in his opposition papers would be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss even if they

were properly pled. For example, even in his opposition papers Boustred does not identify the

specific claims against each defendant. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss

with leave to amend so that Boustred may set forth the claims that he brings on his own behalf 

with greater particularity. 

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 5 of 9
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 6

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

The Court also will grant the motions to dismiss the claims brought on behalf of plaintiffs

RCF/RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get It Real without leave to amend. As a non-attorney,

Boustred may represent himself, but not his children or his businesses. The law requires that a

“non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her

child.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Civil Local

Rule 3-9(a). Similarly, “a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed

counsel.” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see also Civil Local

Rule 3-9(b). The Court will grant the motion to dismiss without prejudice, thereby allowing

these parties to file their claims if they obtain the assistance of counsel. 

The following legal authorities may be helpful to Boustred. First, and most importantly, a

complaint must state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A

complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for one

of two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable

legal theory. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Robertson v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984). Each claim brought by a plaintiff must be

based on existing, identifiable law. A plaintiff must also allege enough facts to support each

specific claim against each defendant to make it is possible, assuming all alleged facts to be true,

for the Court could find in favor of the plaintiff.

Second, a complaint must include a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must provide “fair notice

of the nature of claim and the facts which underlie the claim.” Grid Systems Corp. v. Texas

Instruments Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal., 1991). It must be clear from the complaint

which specific claims are being brought against which defendants. Each claim against each

defendant must be clearly alleged in order to give the defendant fair notice. It is not sufficient to

allege numerous claims against numerous defendants when each claim is not being brought

against all of the defendants. 

Third, parties to a case may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 6 of 9
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 7

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although this is a liberal

standard, “it is not so liberal as to allow a party ‘to roam in shadow zones of relevancy and to

explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably

become so’” Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Intern. Union,

AFL-CIO-CLC, 103 F.3d 1007, 1013, 322 (C.A.D.C., 1997) (internal citations omitted). Thus,

should the present litigation ultimately proceed, Boustred only will be able to obtain discovery

that is clearly germane to identifiable claims. 

Finally, the Court advises Boustred that the employees of the Santa Cruz Child Protective

Services, including Angelica Glass, may be entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from suit. 

“State actors, including social workers, who perform functions that are ‘critical to the judicial

process itself’ are entitled to absolute immunity.” Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 825 (9th Cir.,

2003) (internal citations omitted). When a state actor is entitled to absolute immunity, that state

actor is entirely immune from suit. When a social worker performs functions other than “those

functions historically recognized as absolutely immune at common law, qualified and only

qualified immunity exists.” Id. However, qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial

or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). A

determination as to a state actor’s entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two-pronged

inquiry. First, do the facts alleged, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right? Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 201 (2001); Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002). This first prong

mirrors the substantive summary judgment inquiry on the merits of the constitutional claim. 

Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 969. Second, if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional

right, was that right clearly established? Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 969. 

“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether

it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he

confronted.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. 

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 7 of 9
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 8

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant motions to

dismiss the claims Boustred brings on his own behalf are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. Boustred shall file any amended complaint within ninety (90) days after service of this

order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant motions to dismiss claims brought by

Boustred on behalf of plaintiffs RCF/RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get It Real are

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: September 27, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 8 of 9
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 9

Case No. C 05-00996 JF

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF BOUSTRED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND (2) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHERS WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Plaintiff

Clive Frank Boustred

210 Suncrest Drive

Soquel, CA 95073

Counsel for Defendants

jburton@bvsllp.com

srh@bvsllp.com

fgooch@grlawyers.com

eregalado@grlawyers.com

rwebster@grlawyers.com

Jason.Heath@co.santa-cruz.ca.us

dana.mcrae@co.santa-cruz.ca.us,

nvance@klinedinstlaw.com

jbrelsford@klinedinstlaw.com

Michael A. Miller

Burton Volkmann & Schmal, LLP

133 Mission Street

Suite 102

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Case 5:05-cv-00996-JF Document 29 Filed 09/27/05 Page 9 of 9