1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS GILBERT LAW, Case No. 23-cv-05287-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 9 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT
10 STAR MOONEY, et al., Re: ECF No. 12 Defendants. 11
12 13 Before the Court for screening is Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law’s second amended complaint 14 (“SAC”). ECF No. 12. The court finds that the SAC sufficiently states a claim for the purposes of 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 16 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 17, 2023, alleging that San Francisco Police 18 Department (“SFPD”) Officers—Defendants Balingit, Star Mooney, and Russack arrested him 19 without probable cause, and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1 at 2. He 20 brought Section 1983 claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. 21 On November 13, 2023, the Court issued an order screening the complaint pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court found that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief against 23 SFPD Officer Balingit in their individual capacity. ECF No. 8. The Court dismissed the 24 complaint with leave to amend with respect to Officers Star Mooney and Russack because 25 Plaintiff failed to allege any specific actions by them. Id. The Court also dismissed with leave to 26 amend the claim against the officers in their official capacities for failure to allege facts supporting 27 a policy or custom in the City and County of San Francisco that caused the alleged constitutional 1 On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging 2 additional facts. ECF No. 10. While the FAC named Officer Balingit as a defendant in the 3 caption, the body of the complaint stated a claim only against Officer Star Mooney. Id. The Court 4 reminded Plaintiff that an amended complaint completely replaces any previous complaint; that 5 naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient to state a claim against that person; and that 6 Plaintiff may not incorporate material from prior complaints by reference. ECF No. 11 at 1–2. 7 The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff timely 8 filed his SAC. ECF No. 12. 9 II. AMENDED ALLEGATIONS 10 Plaintiff alleges that he “was beaten with weapons and pepper sprayed by at least ‘10 11 people’ ‘on video surveillance’ on the sidewalk of the 24th St. BART station.” ECF No. 12 at 1. 12 Plaintiff re-alleges the actions by Officer Balingit contained in his original complaint. Id. at 2; see 13 also ECF No. 1 at 4–5. He alleges that he was “chased inside a business where [he] locked 14 himself inside the restroom and ‘dial[led] 911.’” Id. at 2. Officer Balingit then “detained [him in] 15 handcuffs placed very tightly around his wrists,” and “without probable cause detained, arrested, 16 transported, and charged Plaintiff.” Id. 17 Plaintiff also adds allegations about Officers Star Mooney and Officer Singh. Plaintiff 18 alleges he told Officers Singh and Star Mooney that he “was attack[ed] and beaten by 10 people 19 with weapons and pepper sprayed on (video).” Id. at 3–4. He also told Officers Singh and Star 20 Mooney that he “was the victim” and that he “stabbed no person.” Id. He states that both Officers 21 Singh and Star Mooney read him his Miranda rights. Id. Despite his “pleas for help,” Plaintiff 22 claims that Officer Star Mooney told him he was being “arrested for violating California PC 23 245(A)(1),” and then Officers Star Mooney and Singh arrested him. Id. at 3–4. Plaintiff alleges 24 the entire incident took place on the Officers’ bodycams. Id. 25 Plaintiff was detained in San Francisco County Jail for six days. Id. at 2. The District 26 Attorney dismissed the charges for lack of evidence and Plaintiff was released from jail. Id. 27 Plaintiff now brings claims against the SFPD Officers involved in his arrest in their individual 1 probable cause to arrest him because he was not seen stabbing anyone, there was “no victim,” and 2 “no knife.” Id. at 2, 4. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 3 damages from Defendants. Id. at 4. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case whenever it determines that the action 6 “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 7 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in 9 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 10 Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 The standard under Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure 12(b)(6)—dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. To survive a 13 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[a] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 14 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 15 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility 16 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 17 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard requires more than a “sheer 18 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 19 In determining whether a plaintiff has met the plausibility requirement, a court must 20 “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most 21 favorable” to the plaintiff. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff may 22 “plead[] facts alleged upon information and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the 23 possession and control of the defendant.” Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 928 (9th Cir. 24 2017) (quoting Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 603 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)). Furthermore, 25 courts “relax pleading requirements where the relevant facts are known only to the defendant.” Id. 26 (citing Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1503 (9th Cir. 1995)). 27 As here, a “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual may assert a claim alleging a deprivation of a 3 constitutional right. Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but provides a 4 method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 5 393–94 (1989). Plaintiff’s SAC alleges Fourth Amendment violations premised on the 6 unreasonable seizure of his person by Defendants in their individual capacity. Since Plaintiff is 7 not pursuing a claim against Officer Russack, the Court analyzes Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim 8 with respect to Officers Balingit, Star Mooney, and Singh.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS GILBERT LAW, Case No. 23-cv-05287-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 9 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT
10 STAR MOONEY, et al., Re: ECF No. 12 Defendants. 11
12 13 Before the Court for screening is Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law’s second amended complaint 14 (“SAC”). ECF No. 12. The court finds that the SAC sufficiently states a claim for the purposes of 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 16 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 17, 2023, alleging that San Francisco Police 18 Department (“SFPD”) Officers—Defendants Balingit, Star Mooney, and Russack arrested him 19 without probable cause, and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1 at 2. He 20 brought Section 1983 claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. 21 On November 13, 2023, the Court issued an order screening the complaint pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court found that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief against 23 SFPD Officer Balingit in their individual capacity. ECF No. 8. The Court dismissed the 24 complaint with leave to amend with respect to Officers Star Mooney and Russack because 25 Plaintiff failed to allege any specific actions by them. Id. The Court also dismissed with leave to 26 amend the claim against the officers in their official capacities for failure to allege facts supporting 27 a policy or custom in the City and County of San Francisco that caused the alleged constitutional 1 On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging 2 additional facts. ECF No. 10. While the FAC named Officer Balingit as a defendant in the 3 caption, the body of the complaint stated a claim only against Officer Star Mooney. Id. The Court 4 reminded Plaintiff that an amended complaint completely replaces any previous complaint; that 5 naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient to state a claim against that person; and that 6 Plaintiff may not incorporate material from prior complaints by reference. ECF No. 11 at 1–2. 7 The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff timely 8 filed his SAC. ECF No. 12. 9 II. AMENDED ALLEGATIONS 10 Plaintiff alleges that he “was beaten with weapons and pepper sprayed by at least ‘10 11 people’ ‘on video surveillance’ on the sidewalk of the 24th St. BART station.” ECF No. 12 at 1. 12 Plaintiff re-alleges the actions by Officer Balingit contained in his original complaint. Id. at 2; see 13 also ECF No. 1 at 4–5. He alleges that he was “chased inside a business where [he] locked 14 himself inside the restroom and ‘dial[led] 911.’” Id. at 2. Officer Balingit then “detained [him in] 15 handcuffs placed very tightly around his wrists,” and “without probable cause detained, arrested, 16 transported, and charged Plaintiff.” Id. 17 Plaintiff also adds allegations about Officers Star Mooney and Officer Singh. Plaintiff 18 alleges he told Officers Singh and Star Mooney that he “was attack[ed] and beaten by 10 people 19 with weapons and pepper sprayed on (video).” Id. at 3–4. He also told Officers Singh and Star 20 Mooney that he “was the victim” and that he “stabbed no person.” Id. He states that both Officers 21 Singh and Star Mooney read him his Miranda rights. Id. Despite his “pleas for help,” Plaintiff 22 claims that Officer Star Mooney told him he was being “arrested for violating California PC 23 245(A)(1),” and then Officers Star Mooney and Singh arrested him. Id. at 3–4. Plaintiff alleges 24 the entire incident took place on the Officers’ bodycams. Id. 25 Plaintiff was detained in San Francisco County Jail for six days. Id. at 2. The District 26 Attorney dismissed the charges for lack of evidence and Plaintiff was released from jail. Id. 27 Plaintiff now brings claims against the SFPD Officers involved in his arrest in their individual 1 probable cause to arrest him because he was not seen stabbing anyone, there was “no victim,” and 2 “no knife.” Id. at 2, 4. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 3 damages from Defendants. Id. at 4. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case whenever it determines that the action 6 “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 7 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in 9 forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 10 Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 The standard under Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure 12(b)(6)—dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. To survive a 13 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[a] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 14 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 15 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility 16 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 17 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard requires more than a “sheer 18 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 19 In determining whether a plaintiff has met the plausibility requirement, a court must 20 “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most 21 favorable” to the plaintiff. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff may 22 “plead[] facts alleged upon information and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the 23 possession and control of the defendant.” Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 928 (9th Cir. 24 2017) (quoting Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 603 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)). Furthermore, 25 courts “relax pleading requirements where the relevant facts are known only to the defendant.” Id. 26 (citing Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1503 (9th Cir. 1995)). 27 As here, a “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual may assert a claim alleging a deprivation of a 3 constitutional right. Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but provides a 4 method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 5 393–94 (1989). Plaintiff’s SAC alleges Fourth Amendment violations premised on the 6 unreasonable seizure of his person by Defendants in their individual capacity. Since Plaintiff is 7 not pursuing a claim against Officer Russack, the Court analyzes Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim 8 with respect to Officers Balingit, Star Mooney, and Singh. 9 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants arrested him without probable cause in violation of his 10 Fourth Amendment rights. ECF No. 12. To state a claim under Section 1983 against a defendant 11 in his individual capacity, a complaint must “(1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by the 12 federal Constitution or statutory law, and (2) allege that the deprivation was committed by a 13 person acting under color of state law.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 14 2006). To make a valid claim for false arrest, the plaintiff “must plead facts that would show . . . 15 the arrests were without probable cause.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 16 2012). “Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting 17 officers (or within the knowledge of the other officers at the scene), a prudent person would 18 believe that the suspect had committed a crime.” March v. Twin Cities Police Auth., No. 14-cv- 19 00512-SI, 2014 WL 3725931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (internal quotation marks and 20 citation omitted) (emphasis added). “While conclusive evidence of guilt is . . . not necessary 21 under this standard to establish probable cause, ‘[m]ere suspicion, common rumor, or even strong 22 reason to suspect are not enough.’” United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, his allegations are sufficient to raise 24 the plausible inference that he was arrested without probable cause. Plaintiff alleges that he was 25 not seen assaulting anyone, that there was no victim, and that no weapon was found. ECF No. 12 26 at 2. Despite this, Plaintiff states that Officer Balingit “detained [him in] handcuffs placed very 27 tightly around his wrists,” and “arrested, transported, and charged Plaintiff” for violating 1 Singh and Star Mooney that he was the victim and described that he was “beaten with weapons 2 and pepper sprayed by at least ten people.” /d. at 3-4. Notwithstanding these facts, Plaintiff was 3 arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. /d. Liberally construed, the complaint alleges a false 4 arrest claim. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the complaint sufficiently states a 7 claim for relief against SFPD Officers Balingit, Star Mooney, and Singh in their individual g || capacity. Because Plaintiff has abandoned his claims against Officer Russack and against the 9 Officers in their official capacities, these claims are dismissed with prejudice. 10 The court directs the Clerk of the Court to issue summons, and orders that the U.S. ll Marshal for the Northern District of California serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the
2 SAC, and this order upon the Defendants.
13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 3 |) Dated: April 15, 2024 . Op: hep 5 nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28