Heyward v. California Highway Patrol, et al
ORDER by Judge Breyer granting 22 Motion to Dismiss and dismissing without leave to amend (crblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lsS, COURT STAFF).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
Northern District of California
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et
Case No. 17-cv-02890-CRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS [DKT. 22] AND
DISMISSING WITHOUT LEAVE TO
On April 12, 2017, Plaintiff Marco Heyward (“Heyward”) filed suit in Alameda
County Superior Court against Defendants California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and Officer
Garrett Hyer. See Compl. (dkt. 1). Heyward brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 4–9. He also
brings a claim under Cal. Penal Code § 118. Id.
On May 19, 2017, the CHP removed the action to this Court. See Not. of Removal
(dkt. 1). This Court granted CHP’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on Aug. 18, 2017, reasoning that Heyward could not make
out a § 1983 claim against CHP because it is a state agency. See dkt. 17. Officer Hyer
now moves to dismiss Heyward’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Heyward’s claim arises out of a citation for a moving violation issued by Officer
Hyer. Hyer argues that Heyward cannot maintain an action for damages resulting from the
citation because the judge at the citation hearing found Heyward guilty of the moving
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?