Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03505/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03505-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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-3505 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.

ANDRE TONY MILLER,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-3505 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 complaint alleges the following: The defendant, Andre Tony Miller, is Mr. Bolton’s uncle. 

Mr. Miller is trying to have Mr. Bolton killed for insurance proceeds. “He payed officers to brake

my hand. And he has had me sent to jail and bet by police. I fear for my life. He also had my

Case 3:15-cv-03505-LB Document 8 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

15-cv-3505 LB

ORDER 2

blood sent to Arizona. . . . I also found a 4.69 million dollar check that was took this year by him. I

also believe he was getting payed because of me. I once seen a full envelope that read Federal on it. 

I was also po[ison]ed by his works [and] followed by special agents.” (ECF No. 1 at 3 (errors in

source).) Mr. Bolton fears for his life and is “followed by the medical van everywhere [he goes] and

once had [his] blood drained out [of his body].” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Mr. Bolton is listed as an organ

donor, and attributes that fact to Mr. Miller’s daughter working at a hospital. (Id.). Mr. Bolton

states that he “turned to drugs & porn” after his heart was broken. (Id. at 6.) He states further: 

“Because I feel in love with porn this man exposed me and tryed to make me out to be a pervert. 

The 911 records will show . . . people called the police on me everywhere I went, I reported

everything by also calling 911.” (Id.) Then women “started getting raped and people started

getting killed.” (Id.) Mr. Bolton states: “I have a special gift[.] I have seen the future before and I

know I am a son of God.” (Id.) Mr. Bolton found checks for $4.69 million and $5.5 million for a

lottery winner and tried to turn them in to the San Francisco Mayor but the checks were gone when

he went to retrieve them at his uncle’s home. (Id.) Mr. Bolton fears for his life in the hospital in

Martinez because he is in the hospital with the same people who have been trying to kill him on the

streets. (Id. at 7.)

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.” 

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

Case 3:15-cv-03505-LB Document 8 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-3505 LB

ORDER 3

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. First, the complaint does not allege facts

showing state action by the only defendant. Private individuals generally do not act under color of

state law, and therefore are not liable under § 1983. However, action taken by private individuals

may be under color of state law if "there is such a close nexus between the State and the challenged

action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Brentwood

Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001). State action may be

found where private individuals are willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents in

effecting a constitutional violation, see id. at 296, as may exist when there is an agreement or

conspiracy between a government actor and a private party. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 29

(1980). Mr. Bolton did not include any nonconclusory allegations suggesting that Mr. Miller was a

state actor or that his activities should be treated as actions of the State itself. 

Second, the allegations of the complaint appear to be somewhere on the spectrum between

implausible and delusional. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the prisoner

litigation screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, accord judges “not only the authority to dismiss a

claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil

of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

327 (1989)). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios,

claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also

Case 3:15-cv-03505-LB Document 8 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-3505 LB

ORDER 4

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2005) (a case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or

importance: having no basis in law or fact.’”). Even a complaint that is not actually delusional, but

does not state enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, is deficient. See Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mr. Bolton’s story that his uncle is trying to have him

killed fails to state enough facts to present a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 

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

Bolton must allege facts showing that Mr. Miller is a state action or that Mr. Miller’s actions should

be attributed to the state. Mr. Bolton must allege facts to present a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face. 

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-03505-LB Document 8 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 4