Hanna v. The City of Fresno et al

Filing 7

ORDER Vacating Hearing, ORDER On Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, And ORDER Remanding Matter To Fresno County Superior Court (Doc. Nos. 4 , 5 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/1/2012. Case is REMANDED to FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF FRESNO/FRESNO
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
)
COUNTY OF FRESNO/FRESNO
)
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
)
OFFICE, FRESNO COUNTY
)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ELIZABETH )
A. EGAN, and DOES 1 through 100
)
inclusive,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
RIMON HANNA,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

1:12-CV-443 AWI DLB
ORDER VACATING
HEARING, ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND ORDER
REMANDING MATTER TO
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT
(Doc. Nos. 4, 5)

15
16
17

This case was removed by Defendants on March 19, 2012, from the Fresno County

18

Superior Court. Defendants have noticed for hearing and decision motions to dismiss under

19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The matters were scheduled for hearing to be held on

20

May 7, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiff was required to file either an opposition or

21

a notice of non-opposition no later than April 23, 2012. Plaintiff failed to do so. Due to

22

Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition or notice of non-opposition, he is in violation of the

23

Local Rules. Plaintiffs are further not entitled to be heard at oral argument in opposition to the

24

motion. See Local Rule 230(c).

25

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ motion and the applicable law, and has determined

26

that the motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(h). The

27

Court will issue the following order, which disposes of the Defendants’ motion and remands this

28

case to the Fresno County Superior Court.

1
2

Factual Background
Plaintiff filed suit in the Fresno County Superior Court on May 16, 2011, but did not

3

serve the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office until March 14, 2012. Plaintiff’s complaint

4

alleges one federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Elizabeth Egan,

5

and alleges state law causes of action against all Defendants for negligence, malicious

6

prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent emotional distress, and

7

right to liberty.

8

Plaintiff alleges that on April 12, 2010, the criminal prosecution against him was

9

dismissed upon motion from the Fresno County District Attorney’s office. Plaintiff alleges the

10

dismissal followed the inability to obtain a guilty verdict against him. Plaintiff alleges that he

11

was falsely prosecuted under Penal Code §§ 286(c)(2), 261(a)(2), and 664. Plaintiff alleges that

12

the criminal investigation was negligently conducted, and the resulting reports contained false

13

information. Plaintiff alleges that his prosecution was negligent and unjust, and was motivated

14

by fraud and racial animosity.

15
16

Defendant Egan’s Motion

17

Defendant’s Argument

18

Egan argues that dismissal with prejudice of all claims against her is appropriate. With

19

respect to the federal claim, Egan argues that dismissal of this claim is appropriate because the

20

factual allegations do not meet the elements of a § 1983 claim. Egan also argues that she is

21

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute prosecutorial immunity.

22

Plaintiff’s Opposition

23

Plaintiff has filed no opposition or response of any kind.

24

Legal Framework

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed because of the

26

plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

27

To “avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

28

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
2

1

S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). “A

2

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court draw

3

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

4

at 1949. If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, leave to amend need not be granted where

5

amendment would be futile. Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).

6

Discussion

7

a.

8

The Court agrees with Egan that the factual allegations in the Complaint fail to state a 42

9

U.S.C. § 1983 claim. That cause of action does not identify which federal law or Constitutional

10
11

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

right was violated by Egan.
More importantly, however, the Complaint suggests that Egan was acting in her

12

“prosecutorial capacity.” Plaintiff has not challenged Egan’s reading of the Complaint or Egan’s

13

arguments and assertions. That is, Plaintiff has failed to refute Egan’s arguments that she is

14

entitled to both Eleventh Amendment and absolute prosecutorial immunity. Therefore, even

15

assuming that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was properly alleged, Egan is entitled to both Eleventh

16

Amendment and absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 129 S.Ct.

17

855, 860 (2009); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); Del Campo v. Kennedy, 517

18

F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008); Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.

19

2000); Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 583-84 (9th Cir. 1997); Ashelman

20

v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal of this claim with prejudice is

21

appropriate. See id.

22

b.

Remaining State Law Claims

23

The basis for removal to this Court was the presence of a federal question. However, the

24

Court has dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s only federal cause of action. When removal is

25

based on the presence of a federal cause of action, a district court may remand the pendent or

26

supplemental state law claims to the state court once the federal claims have been eliminated.

27

See Lee v. City of Beaumont, 12 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 1993). In fact, “it is generally preferable

28

for a district court to remand remaining pendent claims to state court.” Id. at 937. Since all
3

1

federal claims have been resolved and only state law claims remain, the Court will remand the

2

remaining state law claims to the Kings County Superior Court. See id.

3
4

ORDER

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

The May 7, 2012, hearing date is VACATED;

7

2.

Defendant Elizabeth Egan’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4) the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim

8
9

against her is GRANTED with prejudice;
3.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiff’s

10

state law claims and expresses no opinion about those state law claims or about the City

11

of Fresno’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5); and

12

4.

The Clerk shall immediately REMAND this case to the Fresno County Superior Court.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:
0m8i78

May 1, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4