Langham v. City of Union City - City Hall et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 26 Motion to Dismiss. Amended Pleadings due by 3/1/2024. (kkp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MALIK LANGHAM,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 23-cv-01753-JSW

v.
CITY OF UNION CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
Re: Dkt. No. 26

14
15

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss the seocond amended complaint filed by

16

Defendant City of Union City, Justin Noyd, Matthew Mangan, Kyle Scarbrough, Brian Ross, and

17

Brian Baumgartner (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal

18

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the amended complaint fails to state a claim

19

upon which relief can be granted. Having considered the parties’ papers and authority, the Court

20

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, once more with leave to amend.

21
22

BACKGROUND
This case arises from an alleged search and seizure of Plaintiff’s vehicle after a traffic stop

23

with Union City police on October 30, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that police officers targeted him in

24

the past and initiated a traffic stop within two minutes of him entering his vehicle. Plaintiff

25

alleges that the police cited him for driving without a license. (Dkt. No. 25, First Amended

26

Complaint (“SAC”), ¶¶ 14, 15, 22-29.) Plaintiff responded that he had a right to travel freely,

27

asserted that his driver’s license was on file and was valid, and insisted that the officers required a

28

warrant for his arrest. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-32.) Plaintiff fought his traffic ticket and had a judicial

1

proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 34.)

2

Plaintiff was cited for having tinted windows on his vehicle and for being an unlicensed

3

driver. (Dkt. No. 17, Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A.)1 Plaintiff appeared in traffic

4

court in Fremont, California on February 21, 2023, and was convicted of both being an unlicensed

5

driver and for driving with tinted windows. (Id., Ex. B.)
The Court will address additional facts as necessary in its analysis.

6

ANALYSIS

7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

A.

Applicable Legal Standard.

9

A motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the

10

pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A court’s “inquiry is limited to

11

the allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true and construed in the light most

12

favorable to the plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).

13

Even under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a plaintiff’s

14

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and

15

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell

16

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286

17

(1986)).
Pursuant to Twombly, a plaintiff must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable but

18
19

must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.

20

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

21

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

22

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing the plausibility

23

of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the

24

pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire &

25
26
27
28

The Court has previously Defendants’ request for judicial notice. (Dkt. No. 24, Order dated
December 4, 2023, at 2 n.1.) A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable
dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or
(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be
reasonably questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
2
1

1

Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). However, courts do not “accept as true

2

allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable

3

inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
As a general rule, “a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5

ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled

6

on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation

7

omitted). However, the Court may consider documents attached to the complaint, documents

8

relied upon but not attached to the complaint, when the authenticity of those documents is not

9

questioned, and other matters of which the Court can take judicial notice, without converting a

10

motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Zucco Partners LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,

11

552 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009).
If the Court determines that a complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide whether

12
13

to grant leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to

14

amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose

15

of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.”

16

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (alterations and internal quotation

17

marks omitted). When dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, “a district court should

18

grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that

19

the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1130 (internal

20

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, leave to amend generally shall be denied only if allowing

21

amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the

22

moving party has acted in bad faith. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532

23

(9th Cir. 2008).

24

B.

25
26
27
28

Bane Act Claim.
Plaintiff again alleges a claim for violation of California Civil Code section 52.1, the Bane

Act, which provides in pertinent part that:
[a]ny individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or
3

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may
institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own
behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to,
damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate
equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
right or rights secured.

4

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b). This provision provides that an officer must have had a “a specific

5

intent to violate the arrestee’s right to freedom from unreasonable seizure.” Reese v. City of

6

Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). “The act of interference

7

with a constitutional right must itself be deliberate or spiteful.” Julian v. Mission Community

8

Hospital, 11 Cal. App. 5th 360, 395 (2017). “Evidence simply showing that an officer’s conduct

9

amounts to a constitutional violation under an ‘objectively reasonable’ standard is insufficient to

10

satisfy the additional intent requirement under the Bane Act. Rather, [the plaintiff] must show that

11

[the officer] intended not only the force, but its unreasonableness, its character as more than

12

necessary under the circumstances.” Losee v. City of Chico, 738 F. App’x 398, 401 (9th Cir.

13

2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

14

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the officers acted in a threatening and intimidating manner when

15

they surrounded his car and effectuated a search. (See SAC ¶¶ 46, 46, 81-95.) But, similar to his

16

first amended complaint, Plaintiff again does not elaborate on the manner in which he alleges that

17

the officers treated him with threats, intimidation, or coercion. In his opposition brief, Plaintiff

18

states that he has a witness to the mistreatment from police officers. (Dkt. No. 27, Opp. Br. at

19

3:21-22.) However, this witness does not appear in the amended complaint. Plaintiff also alleges

20

that he was specifically targeted because he “has put the spotlight on this department for

21

unconstitutional practices committed against himself and other members of the public.” (Id. at

22

3:25-26.) However, these allegations – having a witness and being a whistleblower – and the

23

specific facts underlying them which potentially may give rise to liability under the Bane Act do

24

not appear in the second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

25

motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim with leave to amend to allege specific facts in support of the

26

claim of intimidation. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to allege specific facts in his third

27

amended complaint will result in dismissal of this matter.

28
4

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to

3

state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with leave to amend. Should

4

Plaintiff wish to amend his complaint, he may file an amended complaint by no later than March

5

1, 2024.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2024
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5