Pelton v. Amador

Background

Sean Michael Pelton, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Stored Communications Act. His original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The case was then stayed because the alleged Fourth Amendment violations were related to criminal charges pending against Pelton. After Pelton notified the court that those charges had been dismissed, the stay was lifted.

Allegations

Pelton alleged that, on February 9, 2018, South San Francisco Detective Richard Amador searched his phones and online accounts beyond the items for which Pelton had given consent and beyond the terms of a search warrant. Pelton alleged that information obtained through the search led to multiple arrests. He also alleged that Amador received inadequate training and that other people had files illegally downloaded from their phones by the South San Francisco Police.

Pelton asserted claims against Amador, South San Francisco Police Chief Scott Campbell, and the City of South San Francisco. The court explained that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the Stored Communications Act prohibits intentionally accessing certain electronic communications without authorization. It also described the requirements for holding a supervisor liable under § 1983 and for holding a local government liable when a policy or custom causes a constitutional violation.

Ruling

The court concluded that, construing Pelton’s allegations liberally, they were sufficient to proceed with claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Stored Communications Act against Amador, Campbell, and the City of South San Francisco. This was a preliminary screening determination, not a final decision on whether Pelton will prevail.

The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and the order on the three defendants without requiring advance payment of fees. It ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that they would not seek such relief. It set deadlines for Pelton’s opposition and any reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also directed Pelton to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel and warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).