King v. City of Antioch

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 19, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06535
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY KING, Case No. 20-cv-06535-AGT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendants. 11

12 The City of Antioch and the Antioch Police Department, collectively referred to here as 13 “Antioch,” have moved to dismiss pro se plaintiff Troy King’s claims against them. Their motion 14 raises two grounds for dismissal. Both have merit. 15 1. Under California’s Tort Claims Act, King cannot pursue his tort claim for conversion, 16 for which he seeks damages, until he presents the claim in writing to Antioch, and until Antioch 17 rejects it in whole or in part. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. 18 Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). King hasn’t alleged that these prerequisites have 19 occurred, so his conversion claim cannot currently proceed. See Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 20 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007) (declaring that the Tort Claims Act’s claim-presentation requirement 21 is “an element of the [tort] cause of action”); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 22 1982) (explaining that even “a liberal interpretation of a [pro se] civil rights complaint may not 23 supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled”).1 24 \\ 25 1 In opposition, King filed copies of written claims that he previously presented to Antioch. See 26 ECF No. 17 at 6–19. The Court cannot consider these documents in evaluating the motion to dismiss. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In determining the 27 propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s 1 2. King’s constitutional claims against Antioch are impermissibly based on a respondeat 2 superior theory of liability, meaning that he seeks to hold Antioch liable as an employer, based 3 only on the acts committed by its police officers in the scope of their employment. See Compl. 4 |} ¥ 16 (‘The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by individual Defendants within 5 the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer is liable for their 6 || actions.”). “A municipality may not... be sued under a respondeat superior theory” for 7 constitutional injuries. Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) 8 || (emphasis omitted). King must instead identify “deliberate action attributable to the municipality 9 that directly caused a deprivation of [his constitutional] rights.” Jd. (citation omitted). 10 Oe Ok 11 The two identified pleading defects relate only to King’s claims against Antioch. King 12 || also seeks to sue certain Antioch police officers, but with one exception he hasn’t named them in 5 13 his complaint, referring to them only as the individual or Doe defendants. 14 At the motion hearing, King explained that he is still working with Antioch, and also doing 3 15 his own research, to identify the Doe defendants. To give him time to do so, the Court sets April 16 19, 2021, as the deadline by which he must file an amended complaint. King’s amendment should 3 17 || identify the individual defendants by name, describe what each of them did, and explain why their 18 actions violated his rights. The amendment should also attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies 19 || identified in this order. If King doesn’t file an amendment by April 19, his claims will be 20 || dismissed with prejudice. 21 King is encouraged to visit the Court’s website, where he can obtain information and 22 || resources about appearing pro se. See U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Representing Yourself, 23 https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Antioch’s motion to dismiss 1s granted. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 19, 2021 26 ALEX G. TSE 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28