Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mistriel v. Kern County

April 13, 2010

ROBERT GLEN MISTRIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KERN COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS (Doc. 18)

Plaintiff Robert Glen Mistriel ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. Plaintiff names the County of Kern, Kern County District Attorney's Office, Al Leddy, Steven Tauzer, Ed Jagels, Kern County Personnel Board, Ed Buck, Kern County Probation Department, Glen T. Brown, Sally Rockholt, the Estate of Edwin Buck, the City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Police Department, Bob Patterson, Don Rogers, Stan Harper, San Felipe Boys' Home, the Bakersfield Californian Newspaper, Alfred 'Ted' Fritts, the estate of Alfred 'Ted' Fritts, Virginia Ginger Moorhouse, Donald H. Fritts, Hurbert 'Eli' Elias, Eli's Clock Emporium, Tommy Tarver, and Does 1-75 as defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff's amended complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days that cures the deficiencies identified by the Court in his claims.

I. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

Plaintiff claims that many prominent individuals from Bakersfield were involved in a secret conspiracy that involved sexually abusing young boys. Plaintiff claims that this conspiracy involved county executives, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, businessmen, and a newspaper publisher. Plaintiff contends that he was a victim of this conspiracy between 1977 and 1981. Plaintiff claims that between the ages of 13 and 17, he "was sexually enslaved, molested, bonded, tortured and exploited" by Defendants.

Plaintiff contends that each Defendant was an active participant in an organization called "The Lords of Bakersfield," which sexually abused young boys. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Tarver ("business owner") lured and seduced Plaintiff into committing "homosexual lewd and lascivious acts for monetary benefit." Plaintiff claims that Tarver introduced Plaintiff to Defendants Buck (Kern County Personnel Board director), Harper, Elias ("business owner"), Fritts, Rogers (California state senator), Jagels (deputy district attorney) and other Doe Defendants who "were also in hunt of sexual gratification from plaintiff." Plaintiff claims that these Defendants sexually abused Plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Tarver was murdered in 1978 and authorities suspected Plaintiff's involvement. Plaintiff was detained and made a ward of the court. Plaintiff was placed under the care of Defendant San Felipe Boys' Home ("SFBH") and placed under Defendant Rockholt's (deputy probation officer) supervision. Plaintiff complains that SFBH and Rockholt permitted the sexual molestations of Plaintiff to continue. Plaintiff claims that Rockholt and SFBH allowed Plaintiff to be removed from their care and placed under the supervision of Defendants Harper, Rogers, Elias and certain Doe defendants. Plaintiff would be sexually molested, intoxicated, and returned to SFBH. Plaintiff complains that Defendant "Eli's Clock Emporium and a Doe acted as a justifiable guise to remove plaintiff under false pretexts that plaintiff was legitimately employed by one or more defendants."

Plaintiff was also used as a "scout" to lure in "Fresh-Minors." Plaintiff claims that Alfred 'Ted' Fritts and former Bakersfield police commissioner Glen Fitts hosted parties attended by Defendants Leddy (district attorney), Jagels, Tauzer (assistant district attorney), Buck, Rogers, Harper, Elias, Tarver, and various Doe defendants. Plaintiff was sexually molested at these parties.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants were aware of these activities and concealed them "through political influence and office exempted each other from accountability." Plaintiff further contends that when political influence could not be used, "escapades of murder were utilized to silence victims or the revelation of defendants' despicable deeds." Plaintiff claims that Alfred 'Ted' Fritts, as publisher of the Bakersfield Californian Newspaper, "dilute[d] associated stories in which to deceive and mislead the public and in his deliberate attempts to protect his pederast proteges."

Plaintiff claims that Defendants' actions deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1988, and 5101.

III. Discussion

A. Acting Under Color of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.