Klat v. Wahl et al
Filing
8
ORDER: 1. Sua Sponte Dismissing the case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Without Prejudice, and 2. Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) (ECF No. 5 ) and Plaintiffs Motion for Order and Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 7 ) As Moot. Signed by Chief District Judge Cynthia Bashant on 01/29/2025. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mjw)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SUSAN V. KLAT,
Case No. 24-cv-1474-BAS-AHG
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER:
1. SUA SPONTE DISMISSING
THE CASE FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND
v.
13
14
15
16
SCOTT WAHL, and DOES 1–10,
Defendants.
17
2. DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO RULE
12(B)(6) (ECF NO. 5) AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF
NO. 7) AS MOOT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I.
INTRODUCTION
25
On July 6, 2024, two San Diego police officers fatally shot Dejon Marques Heard,
26
grandson of Plaintiff Susan Klat. (ECF. No. 1 ¶ 1). Since the incident, Plaintiff alleges she
27
has been attempting to obtain copies of the “individual officer day-of-incident reports”
28
specific to the July 6, 2024, shooting, and “reports that would indicate previous interaction
-1-
24cv1474
1
between [Mr. Heard] and the San Diego Police Department.” (Id. ¶ 2). Plaintiff alleges that
2
despite her multiple verbal and written requests, the San Diego Police Department will not
3
cooperate. (Id.) Plaintiff claims the documents are not subject to “privileged immunity”
4
because they are separate from the ongoing investigation and therefore should not be
5
suppressed pursuant to California Government Code section 6254(f). (Id.) Additionally,
6
Plaintiff alleges she has not been able to retrieve Mr. Heard’s personal belongings,
7
including his vehicle, which she alleges were not involved in the shooting. (Id.)
8
Plaintiff, appearing pro per, alleges one cause of action for a violation of her civil
9
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically,
10
Plaintiff alleges that her Constitutional rights were violated as a result of Defendant San
11
Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl’s refusal to provide her the requested records under the
12
California Public Records Act. Plaintiff claims Defendant Wahl knowingly neglected his
13
duties when he ignored and refused Plaintiff’s multiple requests for access to the requested
14
records and did so with the intent to cause further despair and harm. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 16.)
15
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Wahl’s actions knowingly infringed upon Plaintiff’s
16
fundamental right to public records secured under the California Constitution and the
17
California Public Records Act. (Id. ¶ 17.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to
18
declaratory judgment and equitable relief under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.)
19
Defendant Scott Wahl brings a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff files an
20
Opposition. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also brings a Motion for Order and Judgment on the
21
Pleadings which appears to be a second opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7.)
22
The Court finds these motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and
23
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); CivLR 7.1(d)(1).
24
25
II.
ANALYSIS
26
Although Defendant brings this Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules
27
of Civil Procedure, the Court must first assess whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction
28
under Rule 12(b)(1). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 671 (2009) (“Subject-matter
-2-
24cv1474
1
jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt.”);
2
see also Conerly v. Veracity Research, No. 2:19-cv-1021-KJM-KJN, 2020 WL 5017604,
3
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (“Federal courts have an independent duty to assess
4
whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue.”
5
(citing United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir.
6
2004))). The Court must sua sponte dismiss claims if, at any time, it determines that the
7
case is not properly in federal court. United Investors, 360 F.3d at 967.)
8
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
9
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a
10
particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated
11
Tribes of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing California ex rel.
12
Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979)). The plaintiff bears the burden of
13
proving that her case is properly in federal court. In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.),
14
N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
15
298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).
16
There are two ways to establish the Court’s jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction
17
and diversity jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). There is
18
federal-question jurisdiction if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
19
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For diversity jurisdiction, the opposing parties must
20
be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed
21
$75,000. Id. § 1332(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 1332(a) to require
22
“complete diversity of citizenship” — that is, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different
23
state than each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
24
Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist here. Although Plaintiff attempts to
25
couch the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as a question arising under the United States
26
Constitution, a failure by a police department to provide records in response to a public
27
records request is not a constitutional violation and therefore does not fall under Section
28
1983, which requires an underlying constitutional violation. See Hammerlord v. Elliott,
-3-
24cv1474
1
No. 23-cv-663-JO-KSC, 2023 WL 3940109, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2023) (dismissing a
2
similar Section 1983 claim for failure to turn over public records because “the refusal to
3
provide public records is not a constitutional violation”). Similarly, Plaintiff cannot bring
4
a Freedom of Information Act claim because such a claim is not viable against state entities.
5
While there is a private right of action under the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov’t
6
Code § 7923.100, that is a claim under state law and the action would have to be filed in
7
state court.
8
Likewise, diversity jurisdiction does not exist here. Because all parties are citizens
9
of California, they are not diverse, and the Court therefore lacks diversity jurisdiction under
10
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
11
While the Court is sympathetic to a grandmother who has lost her grandson in a
12
tragic shooting and seeks information about this event, and although the Court would hope
13
that the San Diego Police Department would work with grieving family members to help
14
them obtain the answers they are seeking, the fact remains that federal court is not the
15
proper forum for such a request. If the Plaintiff wants to pursue her public-records claim,
16
she can file a lawsuit in state court rather than federal court. Cal. Gov’t Code § 7923.100.
17
Leave to amend should not be granted where “the allegation of other facts consistent
18
with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” New v. Armour
19
Pharm. Co., 67 F.3d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1995), overruling on other grounds recognized by
20
Henderson v. Pfizer, 285 F. App’x 370 (9th Cir. 2008). “Futility of amendment can, by
21
itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815,
22
845 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1051 (1996). A proposed amendment is futile
23
“if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute
24
a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214
25
(9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662.
26
Because Plaintiff couches her Complaint solely as one seeking records from the San
27
Diego Police Department, and she is not requesting damages, amendment of the Complaint
28
would be futile.
-4-
24cv1474
1
III.
CONCLUSION
2
For the above reasons, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the case without prejudice
3
to Plaintiff refiling the case in state court. The Court DENIES any leave to amend in federal
4
court as futile. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
5
12(b)(6) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order and Judgment on the Pleadings as both motions
6
are now moot. (ECF Nos. 5, 7.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
DATED: January 29, 2025
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
24cv1474
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?