Reginald Miles v. Cunningham, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 19, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 REGINALD MILES, Case No. 26-cv-01139-LB

12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 1 14 CUNNINGHAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 The plaintiff, who is representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the U.S. 19 Marshals Service, the General Services Administration, and Officer Cunningham, for impolite 20 treatment he received at the security checkpoint in the federal building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 21 San Francisco, California. Before a court can direct the U.S. Marshal to serve — under Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 4(c)(3) — the complaint of a person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the 23 court must determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 24 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The complaint does not allege a claim. The plaintiff may file a 26 supplement by July 20, 2026, with additional facts. If he does not, his complaint may be dismissed. 27 1 STATEMENT 2 The plaintiff, “a professionally dressed Black man,” visited the federal building on June 5, 2025. 3 He presented his identification to security. Officer Cunningham, “without provocation or security 4 justification, responded to Plaintiff with hostility,” asking, “What do you want?” and, “You need to 5 learn how to act when you come into a federal building.”1 Officer Cunningham told the plaintiff to 6 use a different entrance and refused to spell his name. At the other entrance, “officers mirrored 7 Defendant Cunningham’s posture, surveilled Plaintiff, and created an intimidating and humiliating 8 environment despite Plaintiff’s compliance and lawful presence.”2 9 The plaintiff reported the incident to defendant Walden Security and requested security footage. 10 David Arata, a supervisor employed by Walden Security, informed the plaintiff that the incident 11 was being investigated, confirmed completion of the investigation on June 17, 2025, and did not 12 provide the results of the investigation or the security footage.3 On June 11, 2025, the plaintiff made 13 a settlement offer that the defendants ignored.4 14 The plaintiff claims that the events were “disparate treatment, racial profiling, and abuse of 15 authority under color of law.”5 He filed a complaint on February 5, 2026, seeking, in part, 16 compensatory and punitive damages of 350,000 dollars respectively against each defendant, costs, 17 interest, and “attorney-fee equivalent relief.”6 18 ANALYSIS 19 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 20 entitled to relief to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). It may fail by lacking a 22 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts under one. Woods v. U.S. Bank N.A., 831 F.3d 1159, 23 24 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2–3 (¶¶ 10–12, 15). Citations refer to the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 25 2 Id. (¶¶ 12, 14). 26 3 Id. at 3 (¶¶ 16–18); see Emails, Ex. 1 to Miles Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 4–14. 4 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 3 (¶ 19). 27 5 Id. (¶ 15). 1 1162 (9th Cir. 2016). The court accepts factual allegations as true and construes them favorably to 2 plaintiffs. Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898 F.3d 879, 886–87 (9th Cir. 2018). But 3 allegations must state a plausible claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A pro se complaint is 4 construed liberally, and the plaintiff need only allege facts — not specific legal theories — that, if 5 true, would entitle him to relief. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 6 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). 7 Bivens allows an action only in narrow circumstances for claims against federal officers. Bivens 8 v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U. S. 388, 389–98 (1971) (implied 9 cause of action for damages against federal officers for certain alleged violations of the Fourth 10 Amendment); Egbert v. Boule, 596 U. S. 482, 486 (2022) (post-1980 Bivens “cases have made clear 11 that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, 12 not the courts;” no cause of action for First Amendment retaliation or violations of the Fourteenth 13 Amendment); Goldey v. Fields, 606 U.S. 942, 942–45 (2025) (per curiam) (no Eighth Amendment 14 claim under Bivens for excessive force by BOP officers). It does not extend to lawsuits for damages 15 against agencies. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484–86 (1994) (Bivens does not apply to federal 16 agencies); Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70–74 (2001) (Bivens does not apply to 17 private corporations operating under color of federal law). There is no respondeat superior liability 18 under Bivens. Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Rsch. Found. Inc., 188 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999), as 19 amended, 208 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 Even assuming that a Bivens remedy is available, there is no constitutional violation for 21 impoliteness during a person’s entry into the building. Also, the federal building has two entrances, 22 one for the public and one for employees, which allows security officers to direct visitors to a 23 different entrance. Moreover, there was no denial of access to the courts. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 24 U.S. 517, 523 (1984) (the First Amendment provides a constitutional right to petition the 25 government for a redress of grievances, which includes a “reasonable right of access to the courts”). 26 Finally, to the extent that there is a basis for a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is 27 unlikely, there is a requirement of pre-suit presentation of an administrative claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1 sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and a demand for a sum certain); Moody v. United 2 || States, No. 18-cv-00788-WHO (PR), 2018 WL 2387851, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018). Any 3 FTCA claim lies against the U.S. government, not individuals. Galvin v. Occupational Safety & 4 || Health Admin., 860 F.2d 181, 183 (Sth Cir. 1988). 5 Any issues of spoliation in the form of any destruction of video footage are addressed during 6 || litigation. There are no viable claims. 7 CONCLUSION 8 Any supplement must be filed by July 20, 2026, and must explain exactly what happened. A 9 || failure to submit the supplement may result in dismissal of the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 19, 2026 Lit EC a (12 LAUREL BEELER 13 United States Magistrate Judge

(44

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28