Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00003-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARK BOESSENECKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.19-cv-00003-EDL 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PLANITIFF'S COMPLAINT 

On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff Perfecto Bauer Garcia, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

for unspecific civil rights claims and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 11, 

2019 the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. As Plaintiff has not 

yet consented to magistrate jurisdiction, the Court issues this report and recommendation 

recommending that the district judge to whom the case is reassigned dismiss the complaint. 

When a party files an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court reviews the 

application to determine if the party has demonstrated that he or she does not have the resources to 

pay the filing fee that is generally required of all parties filing a complaint in federal court. The 

court must also review the complaint to determine if the action “is frivolous or malicious;” “fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant 

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If the court finds that the 

complaint has any of those infirmities, it must dismiss the case. Id. 

Plaintiff asserts claims against Napa County Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker and 

District Attorney Gary Van Camp for their acts in connection with a criminal prosecution of 

Plaintiff in 2017 for assault with a deadly weapon against Darrel Hanson, his neighbor. Both 

prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity from liability in civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

(1978). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against those two defendants should be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

Plaintiff also asserts a civil rights claim against Defendants Napa Police Officers Andrew 

Hess and Michael Moore. Plaintiff does not list Hess as a Defendant in the caption or in the list of 

Defendants on page 2 of his Complaint. He alleges that he asked Defendant Moore to help him 

bring charges against Hanson but Moore did nothing. He alleges that he witnessed Hanson 

attempting to run his father over with a car and made a report to Hess, who said there was no 

evidence. 

Plaintiff does not specify the legal basis of his civil rights claim, but allegations of an 

inadequate police investigation are generally insufficient “to state a civil rights claim unless there 

was another recognized constitutional right involved.” Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 

(9th Cir. 1985). The “Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental 

aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the 

government itself may not deprive the individual.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Moore and Hess for 

failing to investigate his reports should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Plaintiff also appears to assert a claim against City of Napa Deputy Chief Building Official 

Keith Marks, although Marks is not listed as a Defendant in the caption and is not included in 

Plaintiff’s list of Defendants on page 2 of the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the foundation of 

his house was damaged by the earthquake in Napa on August 24, 2014. Compl. ¶ 17. He alleges 

that on December 23, 2014, a “Napa Building inspector” inspected his property, signed a permit 

regarding his foundation, and left. Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff then poured a concrete foundation and 

“lowered the house on the walls.” Compl. ¶ 17. Later, he was informed by the Napa Code 

Enforcement that his foundation would not support a two-story house. Compl. ¶ 18. On 

November 28, 2018, Marks responded to an email from Plaintiff requesting approval for gas 

service at his house. Dkt. 1 at p. 104. Marks informed Plaintiff that the City of Napa could not 

approve gas service at his house, that the California State License Board investigated his house 

and determined that the foundations would not support the building as it sits, that occupancy of the 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/19 Page 2 of 3
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 Californi

a

house was unlawful in its current state, and that it was deemed an unsafe structure after the 2014 

Napa Earthquake. Id. 

Plaintiff’s only allegation against Marks is that he sent Plaintiff that email. Compl. ¶ 19. 

That allegation is insufficient to state a claim against Marks. 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). “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.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations 

omitted). 

The Court recommends DISMISSING this case. Leave to amend, especially when the 

plaintiff is pro se, should be freely granted when “it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can 

correct the defect.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988). 

However, a court may dismiss a claim without leave to amend when amendment would be futile. 

Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissing the claims against Defendants Boessenecker, Van 

Camp, Hess, and Moore with prejudice. While it appears unlikely that Plaintiff can state a federal 

claim against Marks, e.g. for violation of due process, because of the liberal pleading rules, the 

Court recommends granting Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against Defendant Marks and to 

specifically name him as a defendant if he does so. 

This case is reassigned to a District Judge. Any party may serve and file specific written 

objections to this recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 11, 2019 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00003-EMC Document 6 Filed 01/11/19 Page 3 of 3