McGee v. Alameda County Sheriff Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY MCGEE, Case No. 24-cv-00949-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant.

12 13 In this pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff McGee alleges that on January 31, 14 2024, he was unlawfully arrested and “assaulted [by Alameda County deputies] without 15 reasonable suspicion or probable cause.” Dkt. No. 1. A magistrate judge granted McGee leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 5. 17 McGee filed a similar lawsuit against the City of Palo Alto for false arrest, which the Court 18 dismissed. See McGee v. City of Palo Alto et al, Case No. 23-cv-02113-JD (Dkt. No. 22). 19 Dismissal was warranted because the complaint indicated that criminal proceedings were pending 20 against McGee, which could affect the Section 1983 claims he alleged. Id. at 2 (citing Davis v. 21 Suhr, No. 16-cv-04487-JD, 2017 WL 475289, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017); Wallace v. Kato, 22 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-87 (1994)). McGee was 23 directed to amend the complaint with respect to the criminal charges. Id. He did not do so, and 24 the case was dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dkt. No. 27. 25 The same problem is present here. The complaint alleges that McGee was charged with 26 resisting arrest. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 37. No disposition of the charge is stated, and the status of the 27 criminal case is unknown. In addition, the complaint does not plausibly allege a Section 1983 1 rights. See Turner v. Alberto, No. 3:20-cv-02980-JD, 2021 WL 254447, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2 || 2021) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). 3 Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. McGee may file an amended complaint by 4 || November 8, 2024. The amended complaint must state the status of the criminal charge against 5 McGee. It must also address the shortfalls in the Section 1983 claim. A failure to meet this 6 deadline or conform to this order will result in a dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 41(b). McGee’s request for sanctions, Dkt. No. 16 at 4, is denied. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 9, 2024 10 ll JAMES ATO 12 United fates District Judge

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28