Valencia Barrera v. San Francisco Police Department

Background

Arturo Osiel Valencia Barrera filed a complaint, a First Amended Complaint, and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court found that his financial affidavit satisfied the economic requirements for that application and granted it.

Barrera alleged that staff, security personnel, and shoppers at a Whole Foods store in San Francisco conspired to poison food he purchased on January 29, 2023. He also alleged that food he had been buying and eating from that store for a long time had been poisoned. According to the complaint, Barrera reported the alleged poisoning to the San Francisco Police Department more than once and spoke with Sergeant B. Kneuker on January 29, 2023. He alleged that Sergeant Kneuker refused to investigate or test the food.

Barrera claimed that the refusal led him to believe that Sergeant Kneuker, the San Francisco Police Department, and San Francisco County were conspiring against him to deprive him of equal protection. He sought to pursue equal-protection claims against the San Francisco Police Department, Sergeant B. Kneuker, Sergeant Robert Glenn, and Whole Food Market at 1185 Market Street in San Francisco.

Screening and ruling

Because Barrera was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court reviewed the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if a case is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and may be dismissed when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or describe fantastic or delusional scenarios.

Judge William H. Orrick ruled that Barrera’s complaint was frivolous because its allegations were fantastical and delusional. The court found no plausible supporting facts for the alleged conspiracy to intentionally poison Barrera’s food and rejected the theory that the police were involved in the conspiracy merely because they did not test the food or investigate.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Section 1915(e)(2). It specified that dismissal was with prejudice because no amendment could cure the baseless nature of Barrera’s allegations.