Yue Wang v. Monterey Park Police Department

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-03372
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YUE WANG, Case No. 2:22-cv-03372-FLA (DFM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the pleadings and all the 19 records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the 20 assigned United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report”). Further, the court has 21 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections 22 have been made. 23 The Report recommends dismissal of this action after finding that Plaintiff 24 has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted in the First Amended 25 Complaint. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff has elected to stand on her allegations in the 26 First Amended Complaint without further amendment. ECF No. 41. For the 27 following reasons, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 45) do not warrant 28 a change to the Report’s findings or recommendation. 1 Plaintiff objects that she did not engage in “malicious delay” in litigating this 2 suit, and points out she is a layperson at law with limited English proficiency. ECF 3 No. 45 at 1-3, 5-7. This objection is moot because the Magistrate Judge vacated his 4 initial Report and Recommendation in which he recommended dismissal for 5 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. ECF No. 44 at 3 n.2. 6 Plaintiff objects that Defendants have ignored her request for production of 7 documents. ECF No. 45 at 3-4, 9. But Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery before 8 she has stated a plausible claim for relief. See Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 9 580, 593 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 Plaintiff objects that Defendants unlawfully arrested and detained her in 11 January 2022. ECF No. 45 at 7-8. As the Report found, however, Plaintiff’s First 12 Amended Complaint failed to allege that Defendants lacked probable cause. ECF 13 No. 44 at 12. Moreover, Plaintiff has elected to stand on her First Amended 14 Complaint without further amendment. ECF No. 41. 15 Plaintiff objects that Defendants “only had reasonable suspicion,” rather than 16 probable cause, to take her into custody and detain her, as a danger to herself or 17 others, under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150. ECF No. 45 at 8-9. 18 As the Report found, however, Plaintiff did not clearly raise these allegations as the 19 basis for a Fourth Amendment claim in the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 44 20 at 12 n. 5. It is improper to raise the claim for the first time in Objections to the 21 Report. See Brook as Trustee of David North II Trust v. McCormley, 837 F. App’x 22 433, 436 (9th Cir. 2020). 23 Additionally, Plaintiff’s objection fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim 24 based on her detention under Section 5150. By Plaintiff’s own account, Defendants 25 took her into custody after seeing video and photographic evidence of Plaintiff 26 inflicting wounds to her neck and “acting hysterical,” and after seeing scratches on 27 Plaintiff’s boyfriend. ECF No. 44 at 8. Although Plaintiff suggests the videos and 28 photographs might have been “edited and modified” (id. at 9), she does not dispute 1 || the scratches on her boyfriend. The scratches by themselves would have 2 || established probable cause to take Plaintiff into custody. See Alexander v. City of 3 |) Brisbane Inc., 2021 WL 3621829, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2021) (dismissing 4 || plaintiff's Fourth Amendment false arrest claim where it was undisputed the police 5 || saw scratches on plaintiff's husband from a domestic altercation); see also Worthy 6 || v. City of Berkeley, 573 F. Supp. 3d 1398, 1414 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“[T]he probable 7 || cause test for taking a person into protective custody under § 5150 of the California 8 || Welfare & Institutions Code is the same as that for warrantless arrest.’’) (citing 3 || People v. Triplett, 144 Cal. App. 3d 283, 287-88 (1983)). Thus, Plaintiffs 10 || allegations would have warranted dismissal for failure to state a claim for wrongful 11 || arrest under the Fourth Amendment. 12 Plaintiff objects that the court should not dismiss her First Amended 13 || Complaint. ECF No. 45 at 10. But as the Report found, Plaintiff has not stated a 14 || claim on which relief may be granted, and in light of her election not to file an 15 || amended complaint, dismissal without leave to amend is warranted. ECF No. 44 at 16 || 24. 17 The court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 18 || United States Magistrate Judge. 13 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting Defendants’ Motion to 20 |} Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) and dismissing this action with prejudice. 21 22 || Dated: September 27, 2023 23 24 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28