Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003-1/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK BOESSENECKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00003-EMC 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Docket No. 6

Plaintiff Perfecto Bauer Garcia has filed suit against (1) Mark Boessenecker (a superior 

court judge); (2) Gary A. Van Camp (a deputy district attorney or “DDA”); and (3) Michael 

Moore (an officer with the Napa Police Department or “NPD”). Although not entirely clear, it 

also appears that Mr. Garcia intended to name as defendants (4) Andrew Hess (an officer with the 

NPD) and (5) Kevin Marks (the Deputy Chief Building Official for Napa). 

The complaint against Defendants is not always clearly pled but it appears that Mr. Garcia 

alleges as follows.

(1) Judge Boessenecker. Criminal proceedings were initiated against Mr. Garcia, 

apparently for an incident that took place in late 2016 in which Mr. Garcia allegedly 

drove his car at his neighbor Darrel Hanson. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Hanson appear to 

have had a longstanding feud. Mr. Garcia seems to claim that, in this incident, Mr. 

Hanson actually attacked and/or threatened him. According to Mr. Garcia, Judge 

Boessenecker discriminated against him during the trial and favored Mr. Hanson. See

Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20. Mr. Garcia also claims that, at sentencing, the judge acted 

improperly against him by barring him from recording harassment by Mr. Hanson. See 

also Docket No. 1, at 22 (hearing transcript). Finally, Mr. Garcia claims that the judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 4
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

violated his rights by sending him to jail for a probation violation, see also Docket No. 

1, at 69 (hearing transcript), even though Mr. Garcia suffers from severe sleep apnea 

and stage 3 kidney disease. See Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9.

(2) DDA Van Camp. DDA Van Camp was the prosecutor during the criminal proceedings 

against Mr. Garcia. According to Mr. Garcia, DDA Van Camp left out evidence that 

cast Mr. Hanson, the alleged victim, in a negative light. See Compl. ¶¶ 10, 20.

(3) Officer Moore. Mr. Garcia alleges that, after the criminal proceedings concluded and 

he was in jail, he asked Officer Moore to press charges against Mr. Hanson for using a 

deadly weapon against him and threatening his life, but Officer Moore did nothing. 

See Compl. ¶ 9. The alleged attack seems to have been the incident at issue in the 

criminal proceedings – i.e., where Mr. Garcia was charged with driving his car at Mr. 

Hanson, but Mr. Garcia claimed that, during the incident, Mr. Hanson actually attacked 

and/or threatened him.

(4) Officer Hess. According to Mr. Garcia, in 2002, there was an incident in which Mr. 

Hanson drove his car at Mr. Garcia’s father and his dog. Officer Hess took the police 

report for the incident, but nothing ever happened; Officer Hess said that there was “no 

evidence.” Compl. ¶ 10; see also Docket No. 12, at 3 (report authored by Mr. Garcia).

(5) Mr. Marks. Mr. Garcia alleges that, after the Napa earthquake in 2014, he needed to 

fix the foundation on his house and a Napa building inspector approved his permit. 

Mr. Garcia then had his foundation fixed. Subsequently, he received a letter from the 

city stating that the foundation was not sufficient to support the house and the house 

was deemed unsafe. In November 2018, Mr. Marks, whose title is Deputy Chief 

Building Official, sent an email to Mr. Garcia, in which he stated, inter alia: “[T]he 

property needs to be in safe condition, and as you know, the foundation issue has not 

been taken care of. In fact, the California State License Board investigated the 

foundation and determined that the foundations would not support the building as it 

sits. [¶] Occupancy of the house is unlawful in its current state. It was deemed an 

unsafe structure after the 2014 Napa Earthquake, and it was ordered not to be occupied 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/12/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

until repairs were made. [¶] So, just so you are clear, the inspection that was done by 

Marie Taylor back in 2016 is not valid and until the foundation is repaired under a new 

permit, or the house is lowered to its original state, no permits can be issued. This is a 

safety requirement that cannot be waived.” Docket No. 1, at 99 (email) (emphasis in 

original).

After Mr. Garcia filed his complaint, Judge Laporte granted his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Thereafter, she issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended 

that the claims against Judge Boessenecker, DDA Van Camp, Officer Moore, and Officer Hess be 

dismissed with prejudice. She further recommended that the claims against Mr. Marks be 

dismissed but with leave to amend. See Docket No. 6 (R&R at 3). Mr. Garcia did not file any 

objections to the report and recommendation, although he did file some additional exhibits in 

support of his complaint.

The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation as well as the additional exhibits 

filed by Mr. Garcia. The exhibits do not affect Judge Laporte’s analysis. The Court finds Judge 

Laporte’s report and recommendation thorough, complete, and well reasoned and therefore adopts 

it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court orders that the claims against Judge Boessenecker, 

DDA Van Camp, Officer Moore, and Officer Hess be dismissed with prejudice. The claims 

against Mr. Marks are also dismissed. However, the Court shall give Mr. Garcia an opportunity to 

file an amended complaint as to Mr. Marks only. The Court advises Mr. Garcia that, in the 

amended complaint, he should clearly and specifically state what the alleged wrongdoing of Mr. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/12/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Marks was. Mr. Garcia should also identify what legal rights were violated as a result. Mr. Garcia 

shall have until March 20, 2019, to file an amended complaint. If Mr. Garcia does not file an 

amended complaint by this date, then the Clerk of the Court shall automatically dismiss all 

claims against Mr. Marks with prejudice and close the file in the case.

This order disposes of Docket No. 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 13 Filed 02/12/19 Page 4 of 4