1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERLINDO CASENAS, Case No. 24-cv-08565-PCP
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS
10 MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendants. 11
12 13 Pro se plaintiff Erlindo Casenas brings this lawsuit against nine defendants: the City of 14 Milpitas, the Milpitas Police Department, the Milpitas Police Officers Association, 24 Hour 15 Fitness, Sgt. Matison Mednick, Officer Vivian Ngyuen, Officer Maung Thiha Zaw, Officer 16 Melissa Pizzo Medieros, Officer Max Fontes, and Does 1 through 10. The City of Milpitas, the 17 Milpitas Police Department, Sgt. Matison Mednick, Officer Vivian Ngyuen, Officer Maung Thiha 18 Zaw, Officer Melissa Pizzo Medieros, and Officer Max Fontes (collectively, “City Defendants”) 19 now move to dismiss the claims against them. For the following reasons, the Court grants the City 20 Defendants’ motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Casenas filed this lawsuit in November 2024, then filed an Amended Complaint in 23 May 2025. His claims arise from conduct that occurred while he was at a 24 Hour Fitness gym. He 24 alleges that he called the Milpitas Police Department seeking assistance from harassment by 25 another gym-goer but that, instead of arresting the harasser, the officers targeted him in violation 26 of his constitutional and statutory rights. 27 Mr. Casenas brings the following causes of action against the City Defendants: (1) 1 Amendment; (3) due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) equal protection 2 violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) retaliation and censorship in violation of the First 3 Amendment; (7) discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (7) intentional 4 infliction of emotional distress; (8) invasion of privacy; and (9) civil conspiracy. 5 LEGAL STANDARDS 6 The Federal Rules require a complaint to include a “short and plain statement of the claim 7 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In considering a Rule 8 12(b)(6) motion contending that a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court must “accept all 9 factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable” 10 to the non-moving party. Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 11 Dismissal is required if the plaintiff fails to allege facts allowing the Court to “draw the reasonable 12 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 13 663 (2009). While legal conclusions “can provide the complaint’s framework,” the Court will not 14 assume they are correct unless adequately “supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 664. Pro se 15 complaints are “to be liberally construed,” and “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 16 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 17 (2007). 18 ANALYSIS 19 I. Mr. Casenas fails to plead any Fourth Amendment violations. 20 Mr. Casenas alleges that he was unlawfully arrested, with excessive force, by Officers 21 Nguyen and Zaw. For support, he alleges that he was “forcibly handcuffed,” then was “forced to 22 stand and sit on the pavement causing pain.” He alleges that this arrest came after he was 23 “interrogated and detained … without probable cause.” 24 The use of force—including non-lethal force—must be justified with sufficient reason. 25 Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 825 (9th Cir. 2010). A court evaluates that sufficiency by 26 considering the specific factual situation. Id. Here, Mr. Casenas fails to allege any details that 27 show that the police officers’ actions were unjustified. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which 1 to either stand or sit for some time during the arrest. While Mr. Casenas did inform the officers 2 that he suffered from ADHD, anxiety, and hypertension, none of these medical conditions elevate 3 the use of handcuffs into an excessive force claim. Additionally, Mr. Casenas never alleges that 4 he informed the officers of his knee brace. In the absence of specific factual allegations plausibly 5 supporting his claim that the officers’ use of handcuffs and a short period of painful standing or 6 sitting were unwarranted, Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint fails to adequately plead an 7 unreasonable use of force by the officers. 8 To prevail on an unlawful arrest claim brought under § 1983, a plaintiff bears the burden of 9 demonstrating that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 10 629 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). While Mr. Casenes alleges that there was no probable cause for 11 Officer Nyguen to arrest him for being under the influence of a controlled substance, he fails to 12 provide specific factual allegations supporting that legal claim. In fact, his allegation that he 13 passed the field sobriety tests administered by the officer is directly contradicted by Officer 14 Nyguen’s incident report, which is attached to the amended complaint and identifies several bases 15 for her belief that he was under the influence of a stimulant. A court need not accept as true 16 allegations that are contradicted by exhibits attached to and thus incorporated into the complaint. 17 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). In the absence of any 18 allegations plausibly suggesting that the bases for arrest identified in the incident report were 19 fabricated, Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint fails to plead a Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest 20 claim. 21 Because Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint does not state a valid Fourth Amendment claim, 22 the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims is granted with leave to amend. 23 II. Mr. Casenas fails to plead a due process or equal protection violation. 24 Mr. Casenas brings a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause but does 25 not identify what due process rights were violated. Because Mr. Casenas fails to allege “a 26 cognizable legal theory” that explains his alleged due process violations or to include specific 27 factual allegations plausibly establishing such a violation, his due process claim is dismissed with 1 Next, Mr. Casenas alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Here, he specifies that 2 he was discriminated against on the basis of a mental disability. A cause of action under the Equal 3 Protection Clause requires a showing that a defendant acted with an intent to discriminate against 4 the plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 5 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). Again, Mr. Casenas includes only conclusory statements that one of the 6 responding officers verbally abused him “based on [his] mental health condition.” To pursue an 7 equal protection claim, Mr. Casenas must include specific factual allegations plausibly 8 demonstrating his entitlement to relief. Because he has not done so in his existing complaint, his 9 equal protection claim is also dismissed with leave to amend. 10 III. Mr. Casenas fails to allege facts showing a First Amendment violation. 11 A First Amendment retaliation claim requires a showing that the defendant chilled the 12 plaintiff’s protected speech and that this deterrent effect was a motivating factor in the defendant’s 13 conduct. Lacey v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERLINDO CASENAS, Case No. 24-cv-08565-PCP
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS
10 MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendants. 11
12 13 Pro se plaintiff Erlindo Casenas brings this lawsuit against nine defendants: the City of 14 Milpitas, the Milpitas Police Department, the Milpitas Police Officers Association, 24 Hour 15 Fitness, Sgt. Matison Mednick, Officer Vivian Ngyuen, Officer Maung Thiha Zaw, Officer 16 Melissa Pizzo Medieros, Officer Max Fontes, and Does 1 through 10. The City of Milpitas, the 17 Milpitas Police Department, Sgt. Matison Mednick, Officer Vivian Ngyuen, Officer Maung Thiha 18 Zaw, Officer Melissa Pizzo Medieros, and Officer Max Fontes (collectively, “City Defendants”) 19 now move to dismiss the claims against them. For the following reasons, the Court grants the City 20 Defendants’ motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Casenas filed this lawsuit in November 2024, then filed an Amended Complaint in 23 May 2025. His claims arise from conduct that occurred while he was at a 24 Hour Fitness gym. He 24 alleges that he called the Milpitas Police Department seeking assistance from harassment by 25 another gym-goer but that, instead of arresting the harasser, the officers targeted him in violation 26 of his constitutional and statutory rights. 27 Mr. Casenas brings the following causes of action against the City Defendants: (1) 1 Amendment; (3) due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) equal protection 2 violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) retaliation and censorship in violation of the First 3 Amendment; (7) discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (7) intentional 4 infliction of emotional distress; (8) invasion of privacy; and (9) civil conspiracy. 5 LEGAL STANDARDS 6 The Federal Rules require a complaint to include a “short and plain statement of the claim 7 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In considering a Rule 8 12(b)(6) motion contending that a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court must “accept all 9 factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable” 10 to the non-moving party. Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 11 Dismissal is required if the plaintiff fails to allege facts allowing the Court to “draw the reasonable 12 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 13 663 (2009). While legal conclusions “can provide the complaint’s framework,” the Court will not 14 assume they are correct unless adequately “supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 664. Pro se 15 complaints are “to be liberally construed,” and “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 16 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 17 (2007). 18 ANALYSIS 19 I. Mr. Casenas fails to plead any Fourth Amendment violations. 20 Mr. Casenas alleges that he was unlawfully arrested, with excessive force, by Officers 21 Nguyen and Zaw. For support, he alleges that he was “forcibly handcuffed,” then was “forced to 22 stand and sit on the pavement causing pain.” He alleges that this arrest came after he was 23 “interrogated and detained … without probable cause.” 24 The use of force—including non-lethal force—must be justified with sufficient reason. 25 Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 825 (9th Cir. 2010). A court evaluates that sufficiency by 26 considering the specific factual situation. Id. Here, Mr. Casenas fails to allege any details that 27 show that the police officers’ actions were unjustified. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which 1 to either stand or sit for some time during the arrest. While Mr. Casenas did inform the officers 2 that he suffered from ADHD, anxiety, and hypertension, none of these medical conditions elevate 3 the use of handcuffs into an excessive force claim. Additionally, Mr. Casenas never alleges that 4 he informed the officers of his knee brace. In the absence of specific factual allegations plausibly 5 supporting his claim that the officers’ use of handcuffs and a short period of painful standing or 6 sitting were unwarranted, Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint fails to adequately plead an 7 unreasonable use of force by the officers. 8 To prevail on an unlawful arrest claim brought under § 1983, a plaintiff bears the burden of 9 demonstrating that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 10 629 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). While Mr. Casenes alleges that there was no probable cause for 11 Officer Nyguen to arrest him for being under the influence of a controlled substance, he fails to 12 provide specific factual allegations supporting that legal claim. In fact, his allegation that he 13 passed the field sobriety tests administered by the officer is directly contradicted by Officer 14 Nyguen’s incident report, which is attached to the amended complaint and identifies several bases 15 for her belief that he was under the influence of a stimulant. A court need not accept as true 16 allegations that are contradicted by exhibits attached to and thus incorporated into the complaint. 17 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). In the absence of any 18 allegations plausibly suggesting that the bases for arrest identified in the incident report were 19 fabricated, Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint fails to plead a Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest 20 claim. 21 Because Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint does not state a valid Fourth Amendment claim, 22 the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims is granted with leave to amend. 23 II. Mr. Casenas fails to plead a due process or equal protection violation. 24 Mr. Casenas brings a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause but does 25 not identify what due process rights were violated. Because Mr. Casenas fails to allege “a 26 cognizable legal theory” that explains his alleged due process violations or to include specific 27 factual allegations plausibly establishing such a violation, his due process claim is dismissed with 1 Next, Mr. Casenas alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Here, he specifies that 2 he was discriminated against on the basis of a mental disability. A cause of action under the Equal 3 Protection Clause requires a showing that a defendant acted with an intent to discriminate against 4 the plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 5 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). Again, Mr. Casenas includes only conclusory statements that one of the 6 responding officers verbally abused him “based on [his] mental health condition.” To pursue an 7 equal protection claim, Mr. Casenas must include specific factual allegations plausibly 8 demonstrating his entitlement to relief. Because he has not done so in his existing complaint, his 9 equal protection claim is also dismissed with leave to amend. 10 III. Mr. Casenas fails to allege facts showing a First Amendment violation. 11 A First Amendment retaliation claim requires a showing that the defendant chilled the 12 plaintiff’s protected speech and that this deterrent effect was a motivating factor in the defendant’s 13 conduct. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2012). Mr. Casenas has not 14 adequately alleged that any of the defendants intended to silence his protected speech. Rather, he 15 simply alleges that they either did not adequately respond to his complaints or blocked everyone— 16 as opposed to him specifically—from commenting on their social media posts. Accordingly, this 17 claim is also dismissed with leave to amend. 18 IV. Mr. Casenas fails to allege facts showing ADA violations. 19 A plaintiff asserting a violation of Title II of the ADA must allege (1) that he is a qualified 20 individual with a disability; (2) that he was discriminated against by a public entity; (3) and that 21 this discrimination was because of his disability. Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 695 22 (9th Cir. 2014). As explained above, Mr. Casenas does not properly plead that he was 23 discriminated against and instead includes only conclusory statements. For that reason, his ADA 24 claim against the City Defendants who are public entitles fails and is dismissed with leave to 25 amend. 26 “[A] plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State official in her 27 individual capacity to vindicate rights created by Title II of the ADA.” Vinson v. Thomas, 288 1 therefore dismissed without leave to amend. 2 V. Mr. Casenas fails to plead the administrative exhaustion required to pursue his state law claims against the City of Milpitas and the Milpitas Police Department. 3 4 The California Tort Claims Act establishes certain procedural conditions that a plaintiff 5 must satisfy before filing a lawsuit against a public entity. State of California v. Superior Ct., 90 6 P.3d 116, 118 (2004). Specifically, before filing suit, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for 7 damages with the public entity he is suing. Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2. If a plaintiff fails to do so, he 8 is barred from suing that entity. Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4. Here, Mr. Casenas does not allege that 9 he ever filed a claim under the Tort Claims Act. For that reason, he fails to plead any entitlement 10 to relief on his state law claims against the City of Milpitas and the Milpitas Police Department. 11 Those claims are therefore dismissed with leave to amend. 12 VI. Mr. Casenas fails to plead a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 13 Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a showing of (1) extreme and 14 outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention—or reckless disregard of the possibility 15 of—causing emotional distress, (2) the plaintiff’s suffering of severe or extreme distress, and (3) 16 actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. 17 Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (2009). Mr. Casenas alleges that the defendant caused “severe 18 emotional distress” through “public humiliation, deliberate misinformation in police reports, and 19 retaliation.” Even taking all facts in the complaint as true, the Court cannot find that Mr. Casenas 20 meets the standard required to overcome a 12(b)(6) dismissal because his allegations are entirely 21 conclusory. He does not allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the remaining City Defendants 22 either intended to cause or recklessly disregarded the probability of causing extreme emotional 23 distress. This claim is therefore dismissed with leave to amend. 24 VII. Mr. Casenas fails to allege facts showing an invasion of privacy. 25 A plaintiff alleging invasion of privacy under California law must show (1) a legally 26 protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and (3) 27 conduct by the defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate 1 that any of the required elements are met here. This claim is dismissed with leave to amend. 2 || VOI. Mr. Casenas fails to adequately plead conspiracy. 3 A plaintiff alleging civil conspiracy under California law must show (1) a group of two or 4 || more persons who agreed to a common plan to commit a tortious act then (2) committed acts in 5 || furtherance of that design, (3) resulting in damages. Jd. Mr. Casenas’s existing complaint does not 6 || identify what the alleged conspiracy’s underlying predicate tort is. This claim is therefore 7 || dismissed with leave to amend. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is 10 || with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 35 days of the date of this 11 Order. If no amended complaint is filed, Mr. Casenas’s claims against the City Defendants will be 12 || dismissed with prejudice.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated: October 20, 2025
18 P. Casey Pit 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28