Littlejohn v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 28

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2010: # 1 Envelope) (tf, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Defendant City and County of San Francisco's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint came on 15 regularly for hearing on August 6, 2010. Plaintiff Larry Littlejohn appeared, pro se. Defendant CCSF 16 made no appearance. 17 Plaintiff Littlejohn's complaint stems from a search of plaintiff's residence at 775 Clementina 18 Street, San Francisco by San Francisco police officers. According to the complaint, which was drafted 19 by counsel who subsequently withdrew from the case, the officers informed Mr. Littlejohn that they 20 were there to conduct a parole search of parolee Steven Halstead's residence at 775 Clementina Street. 21 Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Littlejohn cannot state a claim because his complaint 22 admits that Mr. Halstead lived at 775 Clementina Street, and since Mr. Halstead is a parolee, the police 23 officers had the right to conduct a warantless search. Mr. Littlejohn did not file an opposition to the 24 motion to dismiss, but he appeared to argue at the August 6, 2010 hearing. 25 During the hearing, Mr. Littlejohn explained that there was an error in the complaint drafted by 26 his former attorney. Specifically, the complaint should have stated that Mr. Littlejohn told police 27 officers that Mr. Halstead did not live at 775 Clementina Street, but the police continued the search 28 v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. / LARRY LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff, No. C 09-05021 SI ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

nonetheless.1 Mr. Littlejohn acknowledged that Mr. Halstead's drivers license reflected the 775 Clementina Street address for Mr. Halstead, but argued that Mr. Halstead no longer lived there; that Mr. Halstead's probation officer knew that he no longer lived there; and that the officers should have contacted the probation officer before searching Mr. Littlejohn's home at 1:30 a.m.. In response to a question from the Court regarding the officers' qualified immunity, Mr. Littlejohn responded that the San Francisco Police Department and its officers have a policy of not checking with parole agents to determine a parolee's current "parole address," and that policy leads to unreasonable searches of homes where parolees do not or no longer live. Mr. Littlejohn also complained that the hour of the search, approximately 1:30 a.m., was unreasonable under People v. Reyes, 19 Cal. 4th 743, 754 (1998). Before ruling on the pending motion to dismiss, the Court needs further briefing from defendant CCSF. In particular, in light of the factual clarifications made by Mr. Littlejohn, the Court ORDERS defendant CCSF to file a supplemental brief addressing the question of qualified immunity. Such supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than August 27, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Paragraph 25 of the complaint currently states that, "Mr. Littlejohn told the officers that Mr. Halstead did live there and asked the officers to leave." Mr. Littlejohn asserts that it should have read "Mr. Littlejohn told the officers that Mr. Halstead did not live there and asked the officers to leave." Mr. Littlejohn's approach is syntactically consistent and, indeed, the complaint makes little sense unless Mr. Littlejohn's correction is added, as defendants must surely have known when they filed their motion to dismiss. 2

1