Bolton v. Paramo
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-03466
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bolton v. Paramo, Judge Rogers granted government defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding insufficient personal involvement and causation, without leave to amend.
Jessica Bolton’s claims against the government defendants—Gavin Newsom and Kathleen Allison—were dismissed without leave to amend. The opinion does not state a disposition for the custodian staff defendants.
What happened
Jessica Bolton, a staff psychologist at a California correctional facility, alleged that officials retaliated against her after she reported officers using excessive force on an inmate. She sued state officials and correctional staff under federal and state law.
The court found that Bolton’s allegations about officials knowing generally about related litigation and her testimony did not show that those officials personally participated in, directed, or knew enough about the alleged retaliation to cause it. The court granted the government defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
In Bolton v. Paramo, Judge Yvonne Rogers ruled that the amended complaint did not adequately connect the government defendants to the alleged misconduct. The order addressed the government defendants’ motion and did not state a disposition for the correctional staff defendants.
The detailed version
- Bolton v. Paramo · No. 4:21-cv-03466
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 28, 2021
Background
Jessica Bolton alleged that she was retaliated against after witnessing and reporting officers’ use of excessive force on an inmate. She identified herself as a mental health professional and staff psychologist at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which is part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Bolton sued Governor Gavin Newsom, Kathleen Allison, Daniel Paramo, Marcus Pollard, Sergio Bustos, Gabriel Lopez, Jose Valencia, Allen Bowman, and Emmanuel Ramirez. The opinion describes Newsom and Allison as the “government defendants” and the other defendants as “custodian staff defendants.” Bolton asserted claims involving retaliation for exercising free speech under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims based on an official policy, a final policymaker’s act, and ratification, as well as claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Issue and Analysis
The government defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court explained that a government entity or official cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because an employee or subordinate caused an injury. A § 1983 claim requires a direct connection to the alleged harm, such as enforcement of a harmful policy or custom, inadequate training or supervision, or other personal participation or direction.
Bolton argued that the government defendants knew about the retaliation because of her testimony in an earlier related proceeding. She alleged that the Attorney General’s office questioned her about the use of force and the retaliation, and that Newsom, Allison, Paramo, and Pollard failed to act after her testimony. The court held that general knowledge of the related lawsuit, the alleged misconduct, and Bolton’s testimony did not establish a causal connection between her testimony and any action or inaction by the government defendants. The court stated that the allegations needed to be personal to each defendant and found that the complaint lacked sufficiently specific allegations of knowledge or involvement.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers granted the government defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. The order did not state a disposition for the custodian staff defendants. The court also stated that the order terminated Docket Number 33.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.