Lindblad v. Bolanos

Background

Robert Michael Lindblad filed the action against Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Deputies Andrew Constantino, Ron Azar, Jimmy Chung, and Homing Cheung. He later filed a First Amended Complaint naming those defendants and adding San Mateo County, Jennifer Stalzer, the City of Millbrae, the County Commission of San Mateo County, and Safeway Grocery Outlet. Lindblad was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, so the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before directing service on the newly added defendants.

The amended complaint described three incidents. On May 27, 2021, Constantino stopped Lindblad for not wearing a seatbelt, discovered that his license was suspended, briefly handcuffed him, and allegedly searched his vehicle after Lindblad refused consent. In July 2021, two unidentified people whom Lindblad believed were undercover officers allegedly confronted him after he mailed legal papers and repeatedly asked to search his bag. On August 19, 2021, officers stopped and handcuffed Lindblad outside a Safeway after a suspected theft and alleged physical confrontation with store employees. Lindblad alleged that an officer took his coffee and threw it onto his clothing and that officers twisted his wrist, tied his feet, and placed him in a police vehicle.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered the most colorable claims: unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, failure to intervene, and municipal liability under Monell. It dismissed the other claims as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute.

For the May 27 search-and-seizure claim, the court held that the seatbelt violation provided an objectively reasonable basis for the traffic stop and that the suspended license justified prolonging the stop and issuing a citation. The allegation that Constantino unlawfully searched the vehicle was only a bare statement of a legal conclusion without supporting facts.

For the July incident, the court found no plausible basis to infer that the two unidentified people were law-enforcement officers based on the alleged facts, including their black sport-utility vehicle and investigative demeanor. Even assuming they were officers, the amended complaint did not allege that Lindblad or his property was seized.

For the August 19 incident, the court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain Lindblad because they suspected him of theft and of trying to engage in a physical altercation with Safeway employees. The court rejected the excessive-force claims concerning the May and July incidents because the amended complaint did not allege that force was used. It also held that the force alleged during the August incident was reasonable under the circumstances described, including the officers’ awareness of the suspected crimes and Lindblad’s verbal outbursts. Because no excessive-force claim was adequately stated, the failure-to-intervene claim also failed.

The court rejected the municipal-liability claims against the City of Millbrae and San Mateo County. The allegations concerning Millbrae suggested that officers acted contrary to city policies, rather than that a city policy caused a constitutional violation. The allegations concerning San Mateo County likewise claimed that officers failed to follow a handcuffing policy, rather than that the policy itself caused the alleged injury. The court also found no meaningful connection between a cited county policy concerning problem-solving and the alleged surveillance conspiracy.

The court independently dismissed the entire amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction, the claims, and the requested relief. It found that the 95-page complaint contained irrelevant details, confusing tangents, and unsupported allegations.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the entire First Amended Complaint as to all defendants as frivolous under the in forma pauperis statute and dismissed it without leave to amend. The court also dismissed the complaint independently under Rule 8(a).

The motion to compel, Docket No. 59, was declared moot because dismissal ended the discovery obligations. The motion to set aside judgment, Docket No. 76, was stricken because no judgment existed when Lindblad filed it and the court concluded it was filed in the wrong case. The motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Jennifer Stalzer, Docket No. 81, was denied in its entirety because the court found the grounds meritless and also found no indication that Lindblad had provided the required notice and 21-day correction period.