Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04689/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04689-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary E. Bolton
Plaintiff
E. Perales
Defendant

Document Text:

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-4689 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.

E. PERALES; EL CERRITO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-4689 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 8]

INTRODUCTION

Gary E. Bolton, currently a pretrial detainee in custody 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. 7.)1

 This action is now before the court for review of Mr. Bolton’s

amended complaint. This order dismisses the amended complaint, and requires Mr. Bolton to file a

second amended complaint. 

STATEMENT

This is one of several cases Mr. Bolton has filed since May 2015. The other cases are: Bolton v.

Hall, No. 15-cv-3365 LB; Bolton v. Andre Tony Miller, No. 15-cv-3505 LB; Bolton v. Chevron, No.

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 6
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-4689 LB

ORDER 2

15-cv-4406 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB; Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer,

No. 15-cv-4518 LB; Bolton v. Ms. Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB; and In re. Bolton, No. 15-cv-5566

JD. Some of the documents Mr. Bolton has filed in these actions indicate that he has significant

mental health problems. Mr. Bolton currently is “being held at [Napa State Hospital] under a court

order” pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370 “to address [his] immediate needs to regain

competency to stand trial.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) He is a pretrial detainee on a criminal charge that may

result in a Three Strikes sentence. (See ECF No. 3 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No.

15-cv-4517 LB.) Staff at Napa State Hospital are treating, or trying to treat, him with antipsychotic

medications. (See ECF No. 1 in In re. Bolton, No. 15-cv-5566 JD, and ECF No. 9 in Bolton v Ms.

Karen, No. 15-cv-5238 LB). In March or April 2015, he was taken into custody pursuant to

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150, which allows peace officers and certain other

persons to take a person into custody for up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis

intervention if the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is gravely disabled or is a danger to

others or to himself. (See ECF Nos. 8 and 9 in Bolton v. Asian Sheriff Officer, No. 15-cv-4517 LB.)

In the present action, Mr. Bolton filed a complaint, and later an amended complaint. The

amended complaint superseded the original complaint, and provided the following statement of his

claim:

A bus driver was threatened and I told the followers I was tired of being followed so I

threatened to sue, because the bus driver was told not to let me on the bus if I did not

pay. I then got the del Norte BART and was still being followed so I called 911. I

called them for help they first searched me then rain my name took me to the police

station. I was scared so I made them keep the handcuffs on, they then took my

money, diamonds, and a houndred thousand dollar insurance policy. I also called 911

and tried to turn in. This is all on the 911 call record. I had a lot of stuff in my bag

and it all was took. They were looking for a diamond ring. On my property clothing

receipt there is no booking number and it is not signed by me. 

(ECF No. 8 at 3 (errors in source.) The amended complaint listed the defendants as E. Perales and

the El Cerrito Police Department. Mr. Bolton alleged that E. Perales “could be a FBI agent that was

pretending to be a officer because they do it all the time that is what my last lawyer told me that is

why I am here.” (Id. at 2.)

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 6
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-4689 LB

ORDER 3

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

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 amended complaint has several problems. First, the allegations were at least implausible. 

The allegations in the amended complaint repeated a portion of a story that Mr. Bolton has presented

in other recently-filed actions. When read in isolation, the allegations of the amended complaint in

this action appear somewhat unlikely to be true, but when those allegations are read alongside other

recent filings from Mr. Bolton, the allegations move further out on the spectrum past implausible

and toward the delusional. Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he had diamonds and an insurance policy

that were taken, perhaps by the police. In this and other cases, Mr. Bolton has alleged that he has

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 6
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-4689 LB

ORDER 4

found many things, including diamonds, a check for $4.69 million, a check for $5.5 million, gold,

and dead bodies in trash cans. (See ECF No. 8 in this action; ECF No. 1 at 3, 6 in Case No. 15-cv3505 LB; ECF No. 1 at 5-6 in Case No. 15-cv-3365 LB.) Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he was

followed. In this and other cases, Mr. Bolton has alleged that he has many, many times been

followed by unidentified persons and the police, who are trying to kill him. (See ECF No. 8 in this

action; ECF No. 1 at 3 in Case No. 15-cv-3505 LB (“I was also po[ison]ed by his works [and]

followed by special agents”); id. at 7 (he is in fear for his life because he is in the hospital with the

same people who have been trying to kill him on the streets); ECF No. 1 at 5-6 in Case No. 15-cv3365 LB (he has “been followed by special agents” for the last three years and has been “set up so

many times” he has “lost count”).) Here, Mr. Bolton alleged that he had a $100,000 insurance

policy. In the past, Mr. Bolton has alleged that his uncle, Andre Tony Miller, is trying to have him

killed for insurance proceeds, and has used the police to try to kill Mr. Bolton for that reason. (See

ECF No. 1 at 3 in Case No. 15-cv-3505 LB.) 

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 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 in his amended complaint, viewed against the

backdrop of his earlier complaints, failed to state enough facts to present a plausible claim for relief. 

Mr. Bolton will be permitted to file a second amended complaint in which he alleges facts sufficient

to present a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 6
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-4689 LB

ORDER 5

Second, even assuming for a moment the truthfulness of his story, Mr. Bolton did not allege a

constitutional violation based on his encounter with the police. Not every seizure of a person or

property violates a person’s constitutional rights, and the amended complaint did not describe how

his seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment proscribes “unreasonable

searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir.

1994). “‘A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth

Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.’” Lacey v.

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). For an arrest, probable

cause exists if “‘there is a fair probability or substantial chance of criminal activity,’” a

determination that is made based on the totality of the circumstances then known to the arresting

officer. Id. (citation omitted). Mr. Bolton may, in his second amended complaint, attempt to allege

facts showing that his seizure was without probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment. 

Mr. Bolton also did not allege enough facts to plausibly show a constitutional violation with

regard to the property allegedly taken; he was unclear whether a defendant stole the property, the

property was taken incident to him being booked into the jail, or the property was taken as part of an

investigation. The legal analysis may differ depending on the reason the property was taken. For

example, the seizure of property for investigatory purposes must comply with both the Fourth

Amendment and procedural due process. See Sanders v. City of San Diego, 93 F.3d 1423, 1428 (9th

Cir. 1996); see id. at 1428-29 (in most cases, a seizure that complies with the Fourth Amendment

will also comply with procedural due process). In his second amended complaint, Mr. Bolton

should explain why the police took his property, whether he made requests to the police department

for a return of his property, and whether the items were returned. 

Third, Mr. Bolton did not identify any constitutional protection infringed upon by being watched

and followed, as he allegedly was. In his second amended complaint, he must identify the

constitutional right he believes was violated by him being watched and followed. 

Fourth, Mr. Bolton listed two defendants in his amended complaint, but did not allege what

either of them did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights under the Constitution or laws

of the United States, as he must to state a claim under § 1983. His allegations that identify

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 5 of 6
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-4689 LB

ORDER 6

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

wrongdoers only as “they” and “them” are insufficient to state a claim against either of the named

defendants. Mr. Bolton must link each proposed defendant to his claim by explaining what each

defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Mr. Bolton will be permitted to file a second amended complaint. In his second amended

complaint, Mr. Bolton must cure the deficiencies discussed above and allege facts showing what

each defendant did that amounted to a violation of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the

United States.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

The second amended complaint must be filed no later than February 19, 2016, and must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Bolton is cautioned that his second 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 second amended

complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2016 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04689-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 6 of 6