Chauncey M. Mahan v. Juan Perez et al

Filing 137

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. Plaintiff shall file and serve a response to the present order in a written filing on or before May 31, 2018. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-01346 CJC (AFM)
Title

Date: April 30, 2018

Chauncey M. Mahan v. Juan Perez, et al.

Present: The Honorable:

ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Ilene Bernal
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A
N/A
Proceedings (In Chambers): Order to Show Cause

On December 5, 2016, the then-assigned District Judge1 issued an “Order
Granting Motions to Dismiss.” (“Order Dismissing”; ECF No. 118.) The Order
Dismissing held that plaintiff was “precluded from arguing that he owned the
[property] confiscated from his Los Angeles storage unit, and by extension from
making any claims arising out of that property.” (Id. at 7.) The Order Dismissing also
held that plaintiff was “barred from making any claims arising out of his alleged false
arrest.” (Id. at 9.) In addition, the Order Dismissing states that the “estoppel findings
apply to all defendants.” (Id.) Although plaintiff was allowed leave to amend because
he is proceeding pro se, the District Judge also stated that he was “skeptical” that
plaintiff will be able to amend to cure the deficiencies “given that this Order
effectively prohibits him from making any claims based on his ownership of the
[property] or his ‘arrest.’” (Id.)
The docket reflects that plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)
on December 21, 2016, which is the operative pleading. (ECF No. 122.) In his SAC,
1

On February 7, 2017, and pursuant to plaintiff’s motion seeking a change of venue (ECF No. 121),
this case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of
California. (ECF No. 125.) Further, pursuant to an Order of the Chief Magistrate Judge in the
Central District, the case was transferred to the calendar of the above Magistrate Judge on April 25,
2018. (ECF No. 136.)

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-01346 CJC (AFM)
Title

Date: April 30, 2018

Chauncey M. Mahan v. Juan Perez, et al.

plaintiff alleges that “unknown officers” with the Los Angeles Police Department
(“LAPD”) “came to [plaintiff’s] storage unit . . . [and] entered without probable cause;
and [plaintiff] was placed in handcuffs” before being taken to a police station. (Id. at
3.) Plaintiff purports to raise one claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for “being
illegally restrained” and “detained without due process of law.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff
also alleges a Fourth Amendment claim arising from his allegations that LAPD
officers “enter[ed] [his] storage units without probable cause, a warrant, a search
warrant.” (Id.)
The claims that plaintiff alleges in his SAC appear to be the same claims that
Order Dismissing barred plaintiff from raising. Plaintiff’s SAC purports to raise a
claim for “illegal restraint” and a denial of due process, but those factual allegations
arise from the same incident as the claims that plaintiff raised in his First Amended
Complaint, which was the subject of the Order Dismissing. (See ECF No. 118 at 2-3.)
While plaintiff purports to raise a claim in the SAC under a due process theory, such
claims may only be raised under the Fourth Amendment because that Amendment
provides the explicit source of plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (“Because the Fourth
Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against
[certain] … physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more
generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these
claims.”); Hufford v. McEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If, in a §1983
suit, the plaintiff’s claim can be analyzed under an explicit textual source of rights in
the Constitution, a court should not resort to the more subjective standard of
substantive due process.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As the stated in the
Order Dismissing the FAC: “At bottom, [plaintiff] alleges that he was falsely arrested
and that his property was wrongfully confiscated.” (ECF No. 118 at 4.)
Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with the Order Dismissing and for raising claims in

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-01346 CJC (AFM)
Title

Date: April 30, 2018

Chauncey M. Mahan v. Juan Perez, et al.

the SAC that plaintiff already has been found to be precluded from raising. Plaintiff
shall file and serve a response to the present order in a written filing on or before May
31, 2018. Plaintiff is further cautioned that failure to comply with the present order or
failure to show cause, will result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and/or failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

:
ib

Page 3 of 3