Mills v. City of Palo Alto

Background

Eric David Mills, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Police Department, and five Palo Alto police officers: E. Gonzales, Daniel Cuevas, John Zalac, Paul Chamberlain, and C. Conde.

Mills alleged that the officers were involved in his arrest for gun possession and indecent exposure on January 30, 2021. According to the complaint as described by the court, the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence on June 14, 2021, but Mills remained incarcerated in the Santa Clara County Jail until June 25, 2021. He asserted claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, tampering with and fabricating evidence, making false police reports, perjury, and negligence against the officers and the City.

Screening standard

Because Mills is a prisoner suing governmental entities and officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring enough factual content to make a claim plausible.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Court’s ruling

The court held that, when liberally construed, Mills’s allegations stated cognizable claims under federal and state law. “Cognizable” means claims legally sufficient to continue past the initial screening stage. The court therefore ordered the complaint served on the City of Palo Alto and Officers E. Gonzales, Daniel Cuevas, John Zalac, Paul Chamberlain, and C. Conde. The order does not resolve the factual or legal merits of those claims.

The conclusion directs the clerk to issue a summons and directs the United States Marshal to serve the listed defendants without requiring advance payment of fees. The opinion’s conclusion does not list the Palo Alto Police Department among the defendants to be served.

Case-management orders

The defendants must file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 91 days after the order was issued, the defendants had to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or inform the court if the case could not be resolved through summary judgment. Mills’s opposition, if any, was due 28 days after the motion, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition.

The order permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also requires Mills to serve his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).