CARLOS GILBERT LAW v. CARLA CORTES (2025)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 8, 2024, Carlos Gilbert Law, who is proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action against Carla Cortes, Maribel Hinojosa, Mark Ebuen, and Jelani Hunter (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”).) This action is related to Law v. Chu, et al., 24-cv-02870-RFL. In Law v. Chu, Law alleged that Neil Chu and R. Muniz, who are parole agents, sexually abused him. In this case, Law alleges that Defendants, who are also parole agents, retaliated against him after he reported the sexual abuse, in violation of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On March 18, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them. (Dkt. No. 13.) For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This order assumes that the reader is familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties' arguments.

Fourth Amendment Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully arresting him without probable cause. As a general rule, “[a] claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “[a]n exception to this rule exists for parolees.” Estate of Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Torres, 105 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1161 (S.D. Cal. 2015). If an officer reasonably believes that a parolee is in violation of their parole, probable cause is not required to arrest a parolee. United States v. Rabb, 752 F.2d 1320, 1324 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Sherman v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 502 F.3d 869 (applying rule to federal parolees). “The rationale for this is that a parolee remains under legal custody, so a parole arrest is more like a mere transfer of the subject from constructive custody into actual or physical custody, rather than like an arrest of a private individual who is the suspect of a crime.” Estate of Lopez, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 1162 (cleaned up).

Taking the allegations as true, the Complaint does not state a claim that Defendants acted contrary to this standard. In support of his claim that there was no probable cause, Plaintiff relies upon and attaches his “Parole Violation Report” as an exhibit to his Complaint. (Compl., Exh. 2.) Although “[i]n ruling on a motion to dismiss, a district court generally may not consider any material beyond the pleadings material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered.” Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Parole Violation Report may be considered as part of the allegations of the Complaint.

According to the Parole Violation Report, on June 12, 2024, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Northern Region Headquarters (“NRHQ”) received an anonymous phone call from an individual who claimed to be Plaintiff's uncle. The individual repeated the allegations that Chu and Muniz had sexually abused Plaintiff. The individual “continued to get upset while reporting the incident and began making generalized threats about his nephew having to protect himself using a knife and stabbing the Parole Agent who is trying to sexually assault him.” (Compl., Exh. 2 at 6.) The individual also threatened that “if the CDCR doesn't stop the two agents from harassing his nephew that he was going to beat the agents and it is CDCR's fault for not protecting his nephew.” (Id.) The phone number that placed the call was identified as belonging to Plaintiff. The caller also described the sexual assault from the point of view of Plaintiff. When asked to provide a name, the caller refused and hung up. (Id.) The violation cited in the report is “criminal threats.”

The Parole Violation Report further states that the following day, on June 13, 2024, Defendants visited Plaintiff at his listed residence. After Plaintiff let them in, Defendants identified themselves and asked Plaintiff questions about the alleged sexual assault, which Plaintiff did not answer. Defendants arrested Plaintiff for parole violation (criminal threats) and transported him to the San Francisco County Jail. The San Francisco District Attorney did not separately charge Plaintiff for violation of the criminal threats statute, and the matter proceeded instead as a parole revocation. Plaintiff alleges that he was held for 40 days in custody on that basis.

Plaintiff has not alleged that the contents of the Parole Violation Report are inaccurate, let alone provided factual allegations that would support such an inference. The events described in the report support a reasonable belief by Defendants that Plaintiff made criminal threats in violation of his parole. Under California Penal Code § 422, “[a]ny person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out.” According to the report, the individual on the phone threatened to stab parole officers over an alleged assault involving Plaintiff, and described the alleged assault from Plaintiff's point of view. The call was made from Plaintiff's phone number. That is sufficient to support a reasonable belief that Plaintiff had engaged in a criminal threat under the meaning of § 422, and “[t]hat is all the law requires.”¹ Wagner v. Diaz, 2015 WL 3563026. Therefore, the motion to dismiss this claim is granted.

First Amendment Claim. Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested in retaliation for filing a claim that he was sexually abused, in violation of his First Amendment rights. “A First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim requires the threshold showing that there was a false arrest—i.e., that the arrest lacked probable cause.” White v. Stone, No. 21-cv-01207, 2023 WL 7165190, at *8 (D.N.M. Oct. 31, 2023). Thus, to state a claim, a plaintiff “must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest.” Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 401 (2019).

“[W]here the arrest is for parole violations as opposed to a new crime,” the law is silent as to whether “something less than probable cause can support the arrest.” White, 2023 WL 7165190, at *8. In White, the court concluded that it did not need to “resolve what constitutional standard, if any, applies to arresting a parolee for parole violations” because it concluded that probable cause, the “more difficult standard,” supported the plaintiff's arrest. Id. at *9. The same is true here.

Based on the Parole Violation Report on which Plaintiff relies and the accuracy of which Plaintiff does not contest, Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. “Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.” United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007). “While conclusive evidence of guilt is not necessary to establish probable cause, mere suspicion, common rumor, or even strong reason to suspect are not enough.” Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). As previously described, the officers had probable cause to believe Plaintiff made the threatening call. That the District Attorney exercised her discretion not to charge Plaintiff and to allow the matter to proceed by parole revocation does not change that determination. The motion to dismiss this claim is granted.

Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Claims. Plaintiff's sole alleged basis for his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims is that his arrest was without probable cause. The motion to dismiss these claims is therefore granted for the same reasons stated above.

Conclusion. Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified above. Specifically, if Plaintiff wishes to challenge the contents of the Parole Violation Report as untrue, he may do so. However, in order to make a successful challenge on that basis, Plaintiff will need to provide specific facts that would support that inference.

If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified above, counsel shall do so by July 3, 2025. The amended complaint may not add new claims or parties, or otherwise change the allegations except to correct the identified deficiencies, absent leave of the Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Any amended complaint must be complete in itself, and must contain all claims and factual allegations that Plaintiffs wish to pursue in this case. If no such complaint is filed by the deadline, the claims against Defendants will remain dismissed with prejudice, the Clerk will close the case, and judgment will be entered in Defendants' favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although reasonable belief is all the law requires, these allegations are sufficient to establish that the Defendants had probable cause to effectuate the arrest as well.

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge