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.