Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05637/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05637-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAINT DEJUAN MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05637-JSC 

ORDER REVIEWING THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

ORDERING SERVICE BY THE 

MARSHAL

Plaintiff Saint DeJuan Moore alleges that the Oakland Police Department and California 

Highway Patrol Officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court previously granted 

Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and, on review of the First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”), concluded that Plaintiff had adequately pleaded for the purposes of Section 

1915(e) review that the unknown officers subjected him to false arrest and malicious prosecution 

and, accordingly, ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant City of Oakland (the “City”), the 

only Defendant named therein along with a number of Doe defendants. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff 

then filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that in the caption provided the names of eleven 

individual defendants, who were all individual Oakland police officers and California Highway 

Patrol (“CHP”) officers, but otherwise included no allegations pertaining to those individuals. 

(Dkt. No. 22.) The Court therefore denied Plaintiff’s request for an order directing the U.S. 

Marshal to serve, without prepayment of fees, the SAC on the individual officers. (Dkt. No. 42 at 

2.) This denial was without prejudice to renewing the request after amending the complaint to 

state a plausible claim against each individual defendant. (Id.)

Plaintiff has since filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which names two officers

as Defendants: Oakland Police Officer Daniel Tirapelli (“Tirapelli”) and CHP Officer Sean Deise 

Case 3:14-cv-05637-JSC Document 48 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(“Deise”). (Dkt. No. 44.) Plaintiff brings Section 1983 claims against Deise for both false arrest 

and malicious prosecution, and against Tirapelli only for malicious prosecution. 

With respect to the false arrest, Plaintiff alleges that Deise was the arresting officer who 

observed Plaintiff seated in the passenger seat during the car chase that ultimately ended in the 

fatal accident. (Dkt. No. 44 ¶¶ 8.) Following the collision, both the driver and Plaintiff fled the 

scene on foot, and Deise nevertheless apprehended and arrested Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 9.) This is 

enough, for the purposes of Section 1915, to allege that Deise falsely arrested Plaintiff inasmuch 

as a reasonable officer at the scene would not have arrested a person in the passenger seat for 

drunk driving. See March v. Twin Cities Police Auth., C 1400512 SI, 2014 WL 3725931, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. July 25, 2014).

As for the malicious prosecution claim against Deise and Tirapelli, Plaintiff alleges that he 

was subsequently charged with murder in connection with the fatal accident. (Dkt. No. 44 ¶ 10.) 

Tirapelli initiated a criminal investigation on the City’s behalf and failed to request a DNA test of 

the car’s steering wheel until almost 10 months after Plaintiff was arrested despite knowing that 

such evidence existed. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 32.) Plaintiff alleges that both officers misled the prosecution to 

believe there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for murder, and testified at Plaintiff’s 

preliminary hearing in a manner that misled the judge into believing that Plaintiff should be held 

to answer on the murder charge. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff was prosecuted for the offense while 

incarcerated at the county jail for 18 months, and was ultimately released from custody when 

DNA tests confirmed that he was not the driver. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges that Deise acted with 

malice because he knew there was no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and that Tirapelli acted 

with malice because he knew there was exculpatory DNA evidence that would have demonstrated 

Plaintiff’s innocence. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 32.) Plaintiff has therefore pleaded facts sufficient to allege a 

malicious prosecution claim against each officer for the purposes of Section 1915 review. See 

Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal. 4th 958, 965 (2004) (noting that a plaintiff may demonstrate malicious 

prosecution by establishing that the underlying prosecution (1) was commenced by or at the 

direction of the defendant and was pursued to a legal termination in plaintiff’s favor, (2) was 

brought without probable cause, and (3) was initiated with malice).

Case 3:14-cv-05637-JSC Document 48 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The TAC therefore adequately alleges Section 1983 claims against Deise and Tirapelli for 

the purposes of Section 1915 review. This Order is without prejudice to Defendants moving to 

dismiss the claims against Deise and Tirapelli on any grounds. The Clerk of Court shall issue the 

summons. Further, the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the FAC, any amendments or attachments, Plaintiff’s affidavit, and 

this Order upon Deise and Tirapelli.

In light of this Order, the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for December 

10, 2015 is CONTINUED to February 11, 2016 at 1:30 pm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05637-JSC Document 48 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3