Alexander-Campos v. Reinke

Background

Robert J. Alexander-Campos, a former detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, and he filed an amended complaint.

Alexander-Campos alleged that he was at a car dealership when the dealership owner attacked him and then held him until police arrived to arrest him. He sought damages for an allegedly unlawful arrest. He also stated that the charges were dropped and that he was in custody for a probation revocation.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to state a plausible claim for relief, although pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally.

For an unlawful-arrest claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. The court explained that an arrest is supported by probable cause when the circumstances known to the arresting officer would lead a prudent person to conclude there was a fair probability that the defendant committed a crime.

The court concluded that Alexander-Campos could not proceed against the dealership owner because he had not shown a federal-rights violation or that the owner acted under color of state law. As to the police officer, the court found that Alexander-Campos had not alleged enough facts showing that the arrest lacked probable cause.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Alexander-Campos to file a second amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The second amended complaint must include all claims he wishes to pursue and must not incorporate the original complaint by reference.

The court directed him to describe the circumstances leading to the arrest, why the arrest was not supported by probable cause, whether he was arrested for crimes in addition to attempted carjacking, whether the district attorney charged him, and why his probation was revoked and whether it related to this incident. It also directed him to clarify whether he was asserting an excessive-force claim against the police officer and, if so, to describe the officer’s conduct. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton warned that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).