King v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 29

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse granting 24 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The hearing on the motion is vacated. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY KING, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 20-cv-06535-AGT v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 24 12 1. As in his original complaint, King seeks to hold Antioch liable based only on acts 13 committed by Antioch police officers in the scope of their employment. This is a respondeat 14 superior theory of liability, and a municipality may not be sued on this theory for constitutional 15 injuries. See Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019). King has now had 16 two opportunities to identify deliberate action by Antioch. He hasn’t done so, which leads the Court 17 to conclude that further amendment of his constitutional claims against Antioch would be futile. 18 These claims are dismissed with prejudice. 19 2. King continues to sue unidentified Antioch police officers as Doe defendants. The Court 20 gave King three months to identify these defendants, but it appears he wasn’t able to, and he hasn’t 21 suggested that more time would make a difference. More time, the Court has determined, would 22 also delay the inevitable. King has made efforts to add factual allegations, but they fall short of 23 stating a constitutional claim against the Doe defendants. 24 King alleges that Antioch police were called to his residence on numerous occasions to 25 resolve disputes between him and the master tenant. His complaint summarizes what happened on 26 each occasion. The facts alleged, however, don’t plausibly support that the officers treated King 27 differently based on his membership in a protected class (equal protection claim); deprived him of 28 life, liberty, or property (due process claim); conspired to violate his constitutional rights 1 (conspiracy claim); or failed to stop others from violating his constitutional rights (failure-to- 2 intervene claim). As a result, each of King’s constitutional claims lacks the factual heft needed to 3 survive.1 Because King has neither identified, nor stated an actionable constitutional claim against the 4 5 Doe defendants, his constitutional claims against them are dismissed. 6 3. King’s amended complaint also includes several state-law claims. Having dismissed all 7 federal claims prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state- 8 law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). King may consider refiling these claims in state court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: June 7, 2021 ___________________________ ALEX G. TSE United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (equal protection claim); Hotop v. City of San Jose, 982 F.3d 710, 718 (9th Cir. 2020) (due process claim); Crowe v. Cty. of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy claim); Lolli v. Cty. of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure-to-intervene claim). 2 1

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?