Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00801/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00801-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

BRETT PETERSON, D.D.S; 

B.O.L.T., an unincorporated 

association of motorcycle 

riders and enthusiasts; JOHN 

DALKE, an individual; MARK 

TEMPLE, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOSEPH A. FARROW,

Commissioner California 

Highway Patrol; MICHAEL 

GOOLD, in his official 

capacity as Chief of Police 

of the City of Rancho 

Cordova; SCOTT R. JONES, in 

his official capacity as the 

Sheriff of County of 

Sacramento; ROBERT DIMICELI 

a.k.a. ROBERT DI MICELI, 

Officer of the California 

Highway Patrol; STEPHEN 

CARROZZO, Rancho Cordova 

police officer and Deputy 

Sheriff; KAMALA HARRIS, in 

her official capacity as 

California Attorney General,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-KJN

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, members of an organization of motorcycle 

enthusiasts, contend that California laws requiring motorcycle 

riders to wear helmets are being unconstitutionally enforced. 

Plaintiffs bring a 49-page complaint with many repetitive and 

irrelevant allegations that the Court now dismisses with leave to 

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 7
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

amend.1

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are members of “B.O.L.T.,” which “stands for 

Bikers of Lesser Tolerance.” FAC ¶ 5. They style themselves as 

“an unincorporated association of motorcycle riders and 

enthusiasts” and “a civil rights organization focusing on the 

unconstitutional enforcement of helmet laws and the 

constitutionality of helmet laws.” FAC ¶¶ 5-6.

Plaintiffs’ FAC outlines (among other things) their 

reasons for disliking helmets, their reasons for enjoying riding 

motorcycles, and the history of motorcycles in popular culture,

complete with movie quotes, plot summaries, and pictures of 

scenes involving motorcycles. The complaint also explores other 

subjects, such as Plaintiffs’ outrage at the government 

considering “constitutionalists” to be terrorists “alongside 

organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Aryan Brotherhood.” FAC 

¶ 239. 

Eventually, Plaintiffs allege that many of B.O.L.T.’s 

members have been cited or arrested for violations of 

California’s mandatory helmet laws in ways that are 

unconstitutional. See FAC ¶¶ 134-157. They also allege that one 

member’s concealed carry license was taken away “without due 

process.” FAC ¶¶ 273-74. Plaintiffs contend that these 

violations comprise a “clear policy of ticketing motorcyclists 

for non-complying helmets based on officers' discretion and 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for November 2, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 7
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

without regard to the motorcyclists' knowledge of non-compliance 

. . . .” FAC ¶ 225.

Plaintiffs allege violations of their First, Second, 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Doc. #5). The following 

defendants now move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) on the basis of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 

12:2 California Highway Patrol Officer R. Dimiceli in his 

individual capacity, California Highway Patrol Commissioner 

Joseph A. Farrow in his official capacity, and California 

Attorney General Kamala Harris in her official capacity 

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”); 

Scott R. Jones as the Sheriff of the County of Sacramento in his 

official capacity, Michael Goold in his official capacity as the 

Chief of Police of the City of Rancho Cordova, and Officer S. 

Carrozzo in his individual capacity (hereinafter referred to 

collectively as “Municipal Defendants”). Plaintiffs oppose the 

motions (Docs. ##20, 21). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“‘To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Caviness v. 

Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

 

2 Defendants have filed a total of four motions based on Rules 8 

and 12 (Docs. ##9, 12, 13, 18). Because the Court dismisses the 

complaint pursuant to Rule 8, it does not reach the parties’

arguments about Rule 12.

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 7
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

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

556 (2007)). “For purposes of a motion to dismiss, we accept all 

well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and construe 

them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777, 783 (9th 

Cir. 2012). However, the court does “not accept legal conclusions 

in the complaint as true, even if cast in the form of factual 

allegations.” Lacano Invs., LLC v. Balash, 765 F.3d 1068, 1071 

(9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

State Defendants contend:

Plaintiffs’ [FAC] should be dismissed as to 

all [D]efendants because it fails to comply 

with the requirements of Rule 8 to set forth 

a short and plain statement and averments 

that are simple, concise and direct. Its 

forty-nine pages—containing 298 paragraphs, 

embellished with motorcycle movie factoids, 

dialogue, and pictures, historical accounts 

of motorcycle tales, statistics, and quotes 

by luminaries—fails to perform the essential 

functions of a complaint.

(Memo. of P & A in Supp. of State Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“State 

Mot.”) 1:1-7, ECF No. 13-1.) 

State Defendants argue that “[t]he FAC is teeming with 

repetitive and unnecessary allegations.” (Id. at 3:27.) State 

Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs’ “FAC . . . is 

patently at odds with the simplicity and brevity contemplated by 

the Federal Rules[;] [i]t is ‘argumentative, prolix, replete with 

redundancy, and largely irrelevant.’” (Id. at 3:15-17.) 

Specifically, State Defendants argue that there are two sections 

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 7
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

in Plaintiffs’ FAC entitled “Statement of Specific Allegations” 

which are “identical,” (id. at 3:27-4:3) that “the ‘Facts 

Supporting Standing’ and ‘General History and Background Facts of 

Helmet Laws’ sections, which cover fourteen pages . . . are 

nothing more than the type of ‘narrative ramblings’ and 

‘storytelling or political griping,’ that run afoul of Rule 8,”

(id. at 4:4-6) and that “Plaintiffs have pursued their same 

grievances against some of the same defendants” in a related 

litigation which is “now proceeding on a forty-six-page Second 

Amended Complaint that continues to present the same long-winded 

tales of political dissent about enforcement of the motorcycle 

helmet law,” (id. at 4:15-26).

Moreover, State Defendants contend that that “this 

Court’s time is being unnecessarily consumed in attempting to 

discern who is being sued for what in two separate actions, both 

with prolix complaints, in order to try to manage and guide this 

litigation.” (Id. at 5:4-7.) 

State Defendants, further argue that “the [FAC] omits 

critical details,” (id. at 5:10) that “it is impossible to tell 

from the FAC which claims and factual allegations are made 

against which defendants,” (id. at 5:14-15.) that “it is 

impossible to tell which plaintiff asserts [each] particular 

claim,” (id. at 5:20-21) and that “[t]his lack of clarity is 

compounded by the fact that some causes of action appear to 

include multiple, unrelated claims,” (Id. at 5:25-26).

Municipal Defendants similarly move for dismissal under 

Rule 8. (Defs.’ Second Am. Mot. to Dismiss (“Municipal Mot.”) 

5:20, ECF No. 18.)

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 5 of 7
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

Plaintiffs respond that they have complied with the 

requirements of Rule 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs counter that 

“[n]one of the claims previously dismissed in [the related case]

are before this [C]ourt and therefore, there is no redundancy to 

the claims before the Court.” (Pls.’ Opp’n to State Defs. Mot. to 

Dismiss (“Opp’n”) 8:7-8, ECF No. 20.) Further, Plaintiffs counter 

that because of the heightened pleading standard announced in 

Iqbal and Twombly “the Supreme Court . . . require[es] . . . 

greater factual detail for a preliminary merits assessment,” (id.

at 9:11-13) and “[c]onsidering the implications for a statewide 

injunction and nullification of state statutes, Plaintiffs erred 

on the side of providing factual details supporting the[ir] 

claims,” (id. at 9:16-17).

State Defendants reply that “in no way can Iqbal be 

read to require plaintiffs to load complaints with repetitive and 

irrelevant allegations, as Plaintiffs have done by including 

pages of movie quotations, historical anecdotes, photographs, and 

narrative ramblings.” (Reply Br. of State Defs. (“State Reply”) 

2:16-19, ECF No. 29.) 

Rule 8(a)(2) dictates: “A pleading that states a claim 

for relief must contain: . . . (2) a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states: “Each allegation [of a 

pleading] must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(d)(1). 

Plaintiffs’ FAC fails to make clear connections between 

specific allegations and individual Defendants. In failing to do 

so, Plaintiffs have failed to “provide defendants notice of what 

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 6 of 7
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

legal claims are asserted against which defendants.” McHenry, 84 

F.3d at 1176. “The [C]omplaint . . . reads like a magazine story 

instead of a traditional complaint[, whereas t]he Federal Rules 

require that averments ‘be simple, concise, and direct.’” Id. at 

1176-1177. In contrast, Plaintiffs’ FAC is unnecessarily lengthy, 

off-topic, and difficult to comprehend. Therefore, Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss are granted. However, Defendants have not 

shown that amendment would be futile, and therefore, Plaintiffs 

are granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs should take heed that 

their proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC), (ECF No. 24), as 

currently written, fails to rectify Plaintiffs’ inability to meet 

Rule 8’s requirements.

Plaintiffs are granted twenty (20) days from the date 

on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint 

addressing the referenced deficiencies. Plaintiffs are warned 

that this action may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiffs fail to file an 

amended complaint within the prescribed time period. Defendants 

shall file their responsive pleadings to this second amended 

complaint within twenty (20) days thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00801-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 02/12/16 Page 7 of 7