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)

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