Facts

Robert Lindblad moved from Colorado to California. On May 27, 2021, in the City of Millbrae, California, Lindblad was pulled over by Deputy Constantino for not wearing a seat belt. After Deputy Constantino ran Lindblad’s license and registration, it was revealed that Lindblad’s license was suspended. Lindblad told Deputy Constantino that he has been unable to get his license reinstated because he has a 10-year old traffic judgment in Colorado. Lindblad was ordered to step out of the vehicle and three other officers arrived. Lindblad was given two citations, for the seatbelt and suspended license. Though Deputy Constantino briefly placed Lindblad in handcuffs, he was released and not arrested. Then, in August 19, 2021, Lindblad was in a Safeway grocery store in Millbrae. He did not purchase anything but was verbally confronted by employees. After he left, he was stopped by police a few blocks away. Words and a confrontation ensued. Thereafter, Lindblad filed suit against San Mateo County, Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, Deputy Constantino and others.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that law enforcement agents from Colorado working with California law enforcement, quietly surveilled plaintiff’s actions in order to obstruct his litigation activities through intimidation and harassment. Some of plaintiff’s claims included unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, failure to intervene, and Monell liability. For example, in July 2021, he was stopped by individuals he believed were undercover—plain clothes officers in a large, black SUV. The individuals accused plaintiff of theft and repeatedly requested for him to open his bag as to search his belongings.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff's allegations were conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable inferences. Moreover, plaintiff failed to sufficiently provide facts sufficient to raise a right to relief beyond speculation. The complaint conceded that plaintiff was legitimately pulled over for a seatbelt violation. As to the July 2021 incident, it failed to state a reasonable claim for unreasonable search and seizure. Even if the two unnamed men were police, the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff or his property was seized withing the Fourth Amendment's meaning. Finally, as to the August 2021 incident, based on the allegations presented in plaintiff's complaint, the deputies had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain plaintiff, as plaintiff himself was aware that he was suspected of theft and proceeded to exit the grocery store.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend.