Olajide v. Gaffey et al

Filing 132

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 120 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING DEPOSITION DATE by Hon. William H. Orrick. Within 10 days of this Order, Mr. Olajide shall file his amended complaint with the Court. T he amended complaint shall strike (not include) allegations regarding Mayor Quan, Supervisor Carson, or Councilmember Reid. Mr. Olajide shall serve the new defendants promptly with the amended complaint if their counsel is unable to accept service fo r them. Defendants' responsive pleading or motion shall be filed no later than January 13, 2014 and shall be set for hearing no later than February 19, 2014. Mr. Olajide shall be deposed on January 23, 2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
RONALD BOYEDE OLAJIDE,

5

Case No. 12-cv-04303-WHO

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
MICHAEL ARSANIS, et al.,

8

Defendants.
9

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING
DEPOSITION DATE
Re: Dkt. No. 120

10
INTRODUCTION

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Pro se plaintiff Ronald Olajide has filed a motion for leave to file a first amended
12
complaint. Dkt. No. 120. For the reasons states below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and
13
DENIED IN PART. The Court also addresses issues regarding the deposition of Mr. Olajide.
14
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
15
According to Mr. Olajide, his proposed amended complaint provides additional factual
16
allegations, changes the statutes on which his claims are based, and adds five individual
17
defendants: Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, Alameda Supervisor Keith Carson, Oakland City
18
Councilmember Larry Reid, and Alameda law enforcement officers Anthony Banks Jr. and
19
Valmore Courtney.
20
The Court GRANTS Mr. Olajide leave to file an amended complaint adding officers Banks
21
and Courtney as defendants. Mr. Olajide alleges that Officers Banks and Courtney were directly

22
involved in the conduct at issue and the allegations as to them relate to the same facts alleged in
23
the initial complaint. The high-level issues regarding Officers Banks and Courtney are therefore
24

already known to defense counsel1 and the officers are not prejudiced by being added to this action

25
at this stage, especially in light of the new trial schedule set by the Court during the case
26
27
1

28

At oral argument, Alameda County Counsel stated that he would likely represent officers Banks
and Courtney if they were added to the action.

1

management conference on December 3, 2013.
The Court DENIES Mr. Olajide leave to file an amended complaint adding Mayor Quan,

2

Supervisor Carson, and Councilmember Reid as defendants. Mr. Olajide does not allege that these

4

public officials were directly involved in the conduct at issue. Rather, Mr. Olajide alleges that

5

these officials ratified the law enforcement officers‟ conduct by failing to investigate and arrest the

6

officers. These allegations do not relate to the facts already alleged in the Complaint and it would

7

be prejudicial to add these defendants at this stage. Moreover, the Court finds that granting leave

8

to amend to add Mayor Quan, Supervisor Carson, and Councilmember Reid as defendants would

9

be futile. To hold a policymaker liable for ratifying underlying conduct, “there must be evidence

10

of a „conscious, affirmative choice‟ by the policymaker to approve a subordinate‟s decision, and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the basis for it.” Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 134-48 (9th Cir. 1992). Mr. Olajide has

12

pleaded no evidence of a “conscious, affirmative choice” by Mayor Quan, Supervisor Carson, or

13

Councilmember Reid and his claims against them fail.
Mr. Olajide‟s original complaint moved for relief under Title 42 of the United States Code,

14
15

including sections 1981 and 1983. His proposed amended complaint instead moves for relief

16

under 14 Stat.27 and 17 Stat.13 of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871. At oral argument, Mr.

17

Olajide stated that he wishes to move under the Civil Rights Acts rather than under Title 42

18

because Title 42 is not passed by Congress and he only wishes to resort to original laws passed by

19

Congress. The distinction drawn by Mr. Olajide is not compelling to the Court. The Civil Rights

20

Acts of 1866 and 1871 have been codified at 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982 and 1983. See, e.g.,

21

Wyatt v. Cole, 112 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1992) (noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 “is codified

22

at 42 U.S.C. § 1983”); Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, 522 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 1975) (noting

23

that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was “recodified in its present form in 42 U.S.C. ss 1981, 1982”).

24

Accordingly, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for Mr. Olajide‟s claims. Whether Mr.

25

Olajide cites the Civil Rights Acts or Title 42, the Court will interpret his Complaint as alleging

26

claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.2

27
2

28

For an overview of the process of codification, see
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
2

DEPOSITION OF MR. OLAJIDE

1

The parties indicated that they have been unable to settle on a date to depose Mr. Olajide.

2
3

As ordered at the case management conference, Mr. Olajide shall be deposed on January 23, 2014.

4

The defendants shall arrange for a certified court reporter and, with prior notice, a videographer to

5

report and record the deposition. The defendants shall disclose the reporter and his/her reporting

6

certification to Mr. Olajide at least 48 hours in advance of the deposition. The Court will be

7

available by telephone, through the Courtroom Deputy, if an emergency arises during the

8

deposition that requires the Court‟s attention. The parties and counsel are expected to treat each

9

other with respect and not obstruct the deposition.
CONCLUSION

10

Mr. Olajide‟s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART and

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DENIED IN PART. Within 10 days of this Order, Mr. Olajide shall file his amended

13

complaint with the Court. The amended complaint shall strike (not include) allegations

14

regarding Mayor Quan, Supervisor Carson, or Councilmember Reid and shall strike the following

15

paragraphs as they relate only to the futile ratification theory of liability discussed above: F, G, H,

16

29, 30, 31, 42, 57, 58, 59. Mr. Olajide shall serve the new defendants promptly with the amended

17

complaint if their counsel is unable to accept service for them. Defendants‟ responsive pleading or

18

motion shall be filed no later than January 13, 2014 and shall be set for hearing no later than

19

February 19, 2014.
Mr. Olajide shall be deposed on January 23, 2014, according to the guidelines stated

20
21

above.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2013

25
26
27

______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

28
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD BOYEDE OLAJIDE,

Case Number: CV12-04303 WHO

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
MICHAEL J. GAFFEY et al,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on December 4, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said
copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Ronald Boyede Olajide
C/O 4200 PARK BLVD
137
OAKLAND, CA 94602

Dated: December 4, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jean Davis, Deputy Clerk