Pickett v. Boise Police Department

D. Idaho

Pickett v. Boise Police Department

District Court, D. Idaho·Decided March 22, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-00379·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DENNIS J. PICKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00379-DCN Plaintiff, SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY v. SCREENING JUDGE

BOISE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MATTHEW BRYNGELSON; KEPA ZUBIZARRETA; AMY MORGAN; and JOHN DOES I-XL,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Dennis J. Pickett is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, determined that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Initial Review Order, Dkt. 7. Plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint with different or additional allegations. See Dkt. 8-1. The Court retains its screening authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Having reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the Court enters the following order allowing Plaintiff to proceed on some of the claims in the First Amended Complaint. 1. Screening Requirement As the Court explained in its Initial Review Order, the Court must dismiss a prisoner complaint—or any portion thereof—that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2. Pleading Standard

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). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[D]etailed

factual allegations” are not required, but a plaintiff must offer “more than ... unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability,” the complaint has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Discussion A. Section 1983 Claims Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting

under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To be liable under § 1983, “the defendant must possess a purposeful, a knowing, or possibly a reckless state of mind.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). In the initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the individual Defendants searched his home, and removed Plaintiff’s child from his custody, pursuant to a court order, though Plaintiff expressed doubt that the order was genuine. Now, however, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not have a warrant or other court order and did not have probable cause.1

First Am. Compl. at 11–12. Based on these new allegations, the First Amended Complaint states plausible § 1983 claims against the three individual Defendants. Plaintiff’s unlawful search and seizure claims will be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, and Plaintiff’s interference with parental rights claims will be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee

of substantive and procedural due process. See Initial Review Order at 8–12. However, the First Amended Complaint does not state a plausible § 1983 claim against the Boise Police Department (“BPD”). Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to a reasonable inference that BPD has (or had) a search-and-seizure or child-removal policy or custom amounting to deliberate indifference. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436

U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s allegations that such a policy or custom exists are nothing more than conclusory statements, which the Court is not required to accept for purposes of screening

1 At this time, and for purposes of screening under § 1915A, the Court accepts the allegation that Defendants did not obtain a warrant or other court order for the initial GPS “ping” that led them to Plaintiff’s location, for the search of the home, or for the removal of the child. However, Plaintiff should be aware that contradictory allegations in initial and amended pleadings may expose a party to sanctions under Rule 11(b), for example, as well as to a potential prosecution for perjury. See PAE Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]f a party believes that its opponent pled in bad faith, it can seek other means of redress, such as sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court’s inherent authority.”). Further, Defendants are free to utilize the inconsistent allegations in deposing plaintiff, and if necessary, on cross-examination, as well in testing the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s evidence in an appropriate motion under Rule 56. under § 1915A. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do

not suffice.”). B. State Law Claims In addition to § 1983 claims, the First Amended Complaint alleges claims under Idaho state law. Plaintiff first alleges that Defendants made misrepresentations to Plaintiff with the intent that Plaintiff would act upon those misrepresentations. First Am. Compl. at

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI