Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00283-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce Berna
Plaintiff
Lee Cariaga
Defendant
Alfred Frausto
Defendant
Alfredo Fuerto
Defendant
Frank Navarro
Defendant
Luke Powell
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BRUCE BERNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUKE POWELL, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00283-AWI-GSA

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff Bruce Berna (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against a number 

of individual defendants employed as special agents by the Bureau of Firearms of the California 

Department of Justice (“Defendants”) on February 23, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges 

a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Luke Powell, Frank Navarro, Lee 

Cariaga, Alfredo Fuerto, and Alfred Frausto. As discussed below, the Complaint will be 

dismissed because it fails to state a claim. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint.

I. DISCUSSION

a. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the Complaint 

to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

Case 1:15-cv-00283-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 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

2

the Court determines that the Complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to 

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the Complaint can be cured by 

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

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). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set 

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 

are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

To determine whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the 

allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins 

v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after 

Iqbal). 

b. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s Complaint, though lengthy, contains few factual allegations. On September 11, 

2011, Defendants Frank Navarro and Luke Powell allegedly conducted an illegal search of 

Plaintiff’s home. (Complaint 3, 7, 13, ECF No. 1.)1The circumstances surrounding the search are 

unclear, as are the results of the search. In fact, it is even unclear whether the target of the search 

was Plaintiff’s house or a trailer. (Complaint 11, 13, ECF No. 1.) Several months after the search, 

a warrant was issued for Plaintiff’s arrest. (Complaint 7, ECF No. 1.) Over the course of the 

 

1

Page numbers in the Complaint will be refer to the CM/ECF generated page numbers which appear in the upper 

right hand corner of the Complaint.

Case 1:15-cv-00283-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 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

3

ensuing criminal case, Navarro and Powell offered testimony regarding their search at various 

hearings, including Plaintiff’s preliminary hearing and a hearing on a motion to suppress. Id.

Eventually, Plaintiff was sentenced to thirty two months in prison, although it is unclear whether 

this was the result of a jury trial or of a plea bargain. (Complaint 8, ECF No. 1.) It is also not clear 

what role the purportedly illegal search (or evidence obtained in that search, if any) played in 

these proceedings. The rest of the Complaint is a recitation of legal rules that appear to have been 

copied from a legal outline, regarding, among other things, illegal searches and seizures; the good 

faith exception; consent to searches; sovereign immunity; and statutes of limitations. The 

Complaint also contains numerous references to trial transcripts and Plaintiff’s appellate brief 

before the California Court of Appeal, although copies of those documents are not attached to the 

Complaint.

c. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Allegations

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must allege a violation of a right secured by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Rule 8(a) additionally requires that each complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 555. It is not enough to merely conclude that these 

elements have been met; a plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under 

these elements. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 

1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009). The 

complaint must allege that every defendant acted with the requisite state of mind to violate the 

underlying constitutional provision. OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1070 (9th Cir. 

2012).

Plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to state a plausible violation of § 1983. Although it 

is apparent that Plaintiff believes Defendants engaged in some wrongdoing with respect to his 

Case 1:15-cv-00283-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 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

4

criminal case, it is not at all clear what the circumstances or context of that wrongdoing were. Nor 

is it clear what roles the five defendants played in the alleged wrongdoing—only two of the 

defendants are explicitly named in the Complaint in relation to the search. The Complaint cannot 

proceed without some factual basis for each defendant’s liability. It is not sufficient to say that 

defendants engaged in an “illegal search”; Plaintiff should explain what occurred during the 

search and what role the fruits of the search played in the litigation that followed. 

II. LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint to fix the issues 

identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must bear the docket 

number assigned in this case and be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” As a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 

(9th Cir. 2012) (noting that there may be limited exceptions to this rule on appeal). In other 

words, the amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff is instructed to consider the standards set forth in this Order and should only 

file an amended complaint if he believes his claims are cognizable. Any amended complaint shall 

be filed no later than September 8, 2015. Failure to file an amended complaint by the date 

specified will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00283-AWI-EPG Document 5 Filed 08/10/15 Page 4 of 4