Heyward v. California Highway Patrol, et al

Filing 28

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).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARCO HEYWARD,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et
al.,

Case No. 17-cv-02890-CRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS [DKT. 22] AND
DISMISSING WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND

Defendants.
13
14

On April 12, 2017, Plaintiff Marco Heyward (“Heyward”) filed suit in Alameda

15

County Superior Court against Defendants California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and Officer

16

Garrett Hyer. See Compl. (dkt. 1). Heyward brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

17

violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection

18

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 4–9. He also

19

brings a claim under Cal. Penal Code § 118. Id.

20

On May 19, 2017, the CHP removed the action to this Court. See Not. of Removal

21

(dkt. 1). This Court granted CHP’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on Aug. 18, 2017, reasoning that Heyward could not make

23

out a § 1983 claim against CHP because it is a state agency. See dkt. 17. Officer Hyer

24

now moves to dismiss Heyward’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule

25

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

26

Heyward’s claim arises out of a citation for a moving violation issued by Officer

27

Hyer. Hyer argues that Heyward cannot maintain an action for damages resulting from the

28

citation because the judge at the citation hearing found Heyward guilty of the moving