Bolton v. City of Berkeley

Background

A. Bolton filed the case initially without a lawyer in California state court. The City of Berkeley removed it to federal court. Bolton’s First Amended Complaint alleged that Berkeley police officers arrested him on January 27, 2018, used force against him, damaged his bicycle, publicly accused him of being a serial killer, and failed to obtain appropriate medical care. He also alleged other police encounters, racial profiling, falsified reports, and failures by city officials to train and supervise officers.

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. On the day his response was due, Bolton filed a Second Amended Complaint and sought permission to file it. That complaint contained 41 causes of action.

Name issue

The court held that Bolton could not proceed using only “A. Bolton” without either providing his full legal name or explaining why anonymity was justified. The court directed him to provide information about his birth and full legal name confidentially, if desired, or to explain the reasons for seeking anonymity. Bolton was required to address this issue by December 13, 2019. The court stated that the Third Amended Complaint would be dismissed if the name issue was not resolved.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court granted Bolton’s motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. The following claims could proceed once the name issue was resolved because defendants did not challenge them:

- Assault and battery - Violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act under California Civil Code § 51.7(a) - Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act under California Civil Code § 52.1

Claims dismissed with leave to amend

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the other challenged claims and allowed Bolton to try to correct them in a Third Amended Complaint:

- Stalking: Bolton listed seven other encounters with Berkeley police but did not allege enough facts showing an intent to harass, reasonable fear for his safety, and a credible threat intended to cause that fear. - First Amendment retaliation: Bolton did not allege facts showing that officers arrested or detained him because he exercised First Amendment rights. - Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims: The court found the existing allegations insufficient. It noted that the Fourth Amendment generally governs challenges to the reasonableness of searches and seizures, while Bolton’s Second Amended Complaint added several Fourteenth Amendment theories based largely on alleged falsification of reports and records. - City policy-or-practice claim: Bolton did not allege enough facts showing that Berkeley had a policy or practice of racial profiling or excessive force, repeatedly failed to discipline officers, or ignored an obvious need for different or additional training. - Denial of medical attention: Bolton did not adequately describe his serious injuries or explain how the defendants, including the paramedics, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. - Negligent infliction of emotional distress: Bolton did not identify clearly what duty was owed, which officers owed it, or how it was breached. - Negligent supervision and training: Bolton did not allege that the individual defendants had duties to hire, supervise, or train one another and offered only conclusory allegations concerning the unidentified defendants. Adding the Berkeley City Manager did not cure the deficiency. - Sexual battery: Bolton needed to provide more facts about the circumstances of the alleged offensive contact. - Gender violence: Bolton likewise needed more facts about the alleged contact and its connection to gender or sexual coercion. - Unruh Civil Rights Act: Bolton did not allege that he belonged to a protected class or that defendants denied him services or accommodations because of that membership. - Privacy, false light, and defamation: Bolton’s allegations about public disclosures and being portrayed as an immoral or criminally deviant person were too general and lacked details about the alleged assault and disclosure.

Disposition

The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the challenged claims and granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by January 7, 2020. It did not dismiss the three unchallenged claims—assault and battery, the Ralph Civil Rights Act claim, and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim—which the court said could proceed after the name issue was resolved. Judge William H. Orrick also recommended that Bolton seek free limited legal assistance from the court’s Legal Help Center.