Law v. Cortes
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-07816
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Law v. Cortes, Judge Lin denied dismissal of First and Fourth Amendment claims but granted dismissal of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Carlos Gilbert Law’s First and Fourth Amendment claims may continue. His Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
Carlos Gilbert Law, who was representing himself, sued Carla Cortes, Maribel Hinojosa, Mark Ebuen, and Jelani Hunter. He alleged that the defendants, who are parole agents, retaliated after he reported that other parole agents had sexually abused him. He claimed they arrested him without probable cause, violating the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court said Law had adequately amended his complaint by alleging that the parole violation report used to justify his arrest was fabricated and that the alleged phone call described in the report never occurred. The court therefore allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim and Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest claim to continue. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim because Law did not allege painful force or other cruel and unusual conditions, and dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim because the alleged unlawful arrest was covered by the Fourth Amendment.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion was denied as to the First and Fourth Amendment claims and granted as to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, with those dismissals entered without leave to amend. The parties were ordered to submit a joint case-management statement and proposed schedule by September 26, 2025.
The detailed version
- Law v. Cortes · No. 3:24-cv-07816
- Lin
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Carlos Gilbert Law, proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil-rights action against Carla Cortes, Maribel Hinojosa, Mark Ebuen, and Jelani Hunter. Law alleged that the defendants, who are parole agents, retaliated against him after he reported that Neil Chu and R. Muniz, also parole agents, had sexually abused him. According to Law, the defendants arrested him without probable cause in violation of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court had previously dismissed the claims with leave to amend because Law had not adequately alleged that the defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him. In his second amended complaint, Law alleged that the parole violation report supporting the arrest was entirely fabricated, including that no phone call described in the report had occurred.
Fourth Amendment claim
The court denied the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court was required to treat Law’s allegations as true. The court concluded that his allegations sufficiently claimed that the report was untrue and that the defendants therefore had no basis to arrest him.
First Amendment claim
The court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim. Because Law sufficiently alleged that he was falsely arrested, the court concluded that he plausibly alleged that the arrest was retaliation for filing a complaint against other officers.
Eighth Amendment claim
The court granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim without leave to amend. Law did not allege that force used during his arrest caused pain, or identify another basis for finding that his incarceration was cruel and unusual. To the extent he challenged the incarceration resulting from the allegedly unlawful arrest, the court found that claim duplicative of the Fourth Amendment claim.
Fourteenth Amendment claim
The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim without leave to amend. It explained that when a constitutional claim is covered by a specific provision such as the Fourth Amendment, that provision supplies the applicable standard. Because the basis of Law’s Fourteenth Amendment claim appeared to be his arrest without probable cause, the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment governed and that the Fourteenth Amendment claim was duplicative.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to the First and Fourth Amendment claims and granted the motion as to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, dismissing those latter claims without leave to amend. The parties were ordered to submit a joint case-management statement with a proposed case schedule by September 26, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.