Arrest for Insurance Fraud is not a Violation of Constitutional Rights
Court Give Plaintiffs Acting as their Own Lawyer a Second Chance
Post number 5310
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ5yrK8m, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSPcXJ6A and at https://lnkd.in/gfdvbaMT, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Arin Sutton et al v. Lori Pozuelos et al., No. 5:25-cv-03544-MRA-MAR, United States District Court, C.D. California (March 20, 2026) Plaintiffs Darin Sutton and Youtha Baker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Lori Pozuelos, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege violations of their constitutional rights, though the complaint’s factual allegations are stated in general terms and lack specific detail as to the actions of each defendant.
Plaintiffs are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. Plaintiffs filed multiple claims with insurance companies. They allege one of the insurance companies filed a “suspected fraud claim” (SFC) regarding Missouri LLC’s G Mentality and Deverric and Dillon Remodeling. Defendant Pozuelos, an investigator employed by CD and assigned to the California Department of Insurance (“CDI”) Fraud Division was assigned to investigate Plaintiffs’ independent contractor work in Missouri.
LEGAL ISSUES
The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of any action filed in forma pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against immune defendants. The complaint was brought pursuant to section 1983, which provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.
The central question was whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under section 1983 and satisfied federal pleading standards.
ANALYSIS
The Court found the complaint deficient for lack of specificity regarding the alleged constitutional violations and the actions of each defendant. The Court concluded that, as pleaded, the complaint did not meet the standards required by law and thus warranted dismissal.
DISCUSSION
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure identified deficiencies.
Plaintiffs named Lori Pozuelos, in her Individual and Official Capacity as an Investigator with the California Department of Insurance as a defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that they are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant presented “contradictory and misleading testimony” to a grand jury, which led to their April 2023 arrests without probable cause.
SUIT AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANTS
A plaintiff may seek monetary damages under section 1983 from state employees in their individual capacity. However, because a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is no different from a suit against the State itself, state officials sued in their official capacity, like the State itself, are generally entitled to immunity in a section 1983 action.
The Supreme Court has recognized one vital exception to this general rule: When sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in his official capacity is considered a ‘person’ for § 1983 purposes, and the Eleventh Amendment will not bar such relief. As the Supreme Court explains, a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.
Therefore, a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state employee in his official capacity may be cognizable when properly pled.
Prosecutors have absolute immunity to suits under section 1983 when the prosecutor acts within the scope of his or her authority and in a quasi-judicial capacity. Since the plaintiffs sued Doe Defendant Prosecutors there was no case against the Doe Defendants pled.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS APPEAR TIME-BARRED
The statute of limitations for section 1983 claims is the applicable state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. In any amended complaint, Plaintiffs should clearly identify the dates for the relevant incidents and explain any basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.
ZALMA OPINION
People who sue in federal court acting as their own lawyer and alleging they are paupers and unable to pay the filing fees sued a California state Insurance Fraud Investigator and unknown prosecutors to stop prosecution. They failed to allege sufficient facts, the suit was dismissed, and the court gave the plaintiffs the right file an amended complaint although the plaintiffs were not worthy of the court’s kindness. The state of California should pursue the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiffs in accordance with the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
