Dunn v. Santa Cruz County

Background

Gregory Edwin Dunn sued Santa Cruz County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government actors for violating constitutional rights. He asserted violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought damages and an injunction. Dunn was proceeding without paying the filing fee, so the court was required to screen his complaint.

Dunn’s original complaint alleged that an unauthorized third party in Santa Cruz County began interfering with his iPhone on October 23, 2020, including by destroying data and changing the phone’s passcode through mobile-device-management tools. Judge DeMarchi dismissed that complaint with leave to amend and instructed Dunn to identify the specific acts involved and who performed them. Dunn then filed the first amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court understood the amended complaint to allege that the Santa Cruz County probation department interfered with Dunn’s iPhone through continuous electronic monitoring, passcode changes, restrictions on access, and conduct that could erase stored data. Dunn also alleged that the County’s investigation of him was continuing and could lead to another unlawful search or seizure.

The court held that these allegations were conclusory and unsupported by facts. Dunn did not identify any Santa Cruz County employee or describe what that person did. He also did not explain why he believed the County was responsible for the phone problems or how his prior conviction in Yolo County related to the alleged interference. The court therefore found that the amended complaint did not state a viable claim under § 1983.

The court considered whether to allow another amendment. It found no undue delay or bad faith, and prejudice was not at issue because Santa Cruz County had not been served. But the court emphasized Dunn’s repeated failure to correct the deficiencies after the earlier dismissal and found that further amendment would be futile.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the file.