Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03833/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03833-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

PAUL HILF,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW GRASMUCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON 

THE PLEADINGS, DENYING MOTION 

TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 

DENYING MOTION TO READ ALL 

PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF 

REMOVAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 11, 23, 24, 25, 34)

Plaintiff Paul Hilf, proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendant Matthew Grasmuck, a 

California Highway Patrol officer, unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned him.1 Hilf also 

alleges that Grasmuck and Defendant Arthur Trujillo, who also is proceeding pro se, deprived Hilf 

of his private property without due process.2 Because Younger v. Harris3requires the court to 

abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings, Grasmuck’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED. Leave to amend is DENIED because amendment would be futile.

As for Hilf’s motions for judgment on the pleadings,4to claim and exercise Constitutional 

 

1

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 18-19.

2

See id. at ¶¶ 20-25.

3

401 U.S. 37 (1971).

4

See Docket No. 24.

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

rights5and to demand that the court read all his pleadings,

6

they also are DENIED, and his notice 

of removal of his state court criminal case7is STRICKEN.

I.

Hilf alleges that Grasmuck, acting in his capacity as a CHP officer, arrested Hilf without a 

warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances, and held him captive for nearly an hour.8 

Grasmuck then had Hilf’s car towed by Trujillo and impounded under Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6, 

which authorizes the seizure of a vehicle when a person drives with a suspended license.

9

 

Grasmuck also cited Hilf for driving an unregistered vehicle in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 

4000(a)(1) and for driving with a suspended driver’s license in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 

14601(a).10 Hilf currently has a criminal case pending against him in state court for the latter 

offense.11 

Based on these events, Hilf alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, and specifically asserts claims for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment in violation of the 

Fourth and Fifth Amendments against Grasmuck and for deprivation of property without due 

process against both Grasmuck and Trujillo. 

II.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties further 

 

5

See Docket No. 25.

6

See Docket No. 34.

7

See Docket No. 23.

8

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 8-11.

9

See id.; Cal. Veh. Code. § 14602.6(a)(1).

10 See Docket No. 11 at 3.

11 See Docket No. 12-1; People v. Paul Leonard Hilf, Case No. C1493367 (Santa Clara Cty Super. 

Ct. Sep. 22, 2014).

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).12

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.”13 When a plaintiff fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.14 A claim is facially plausible “when the pleaded factual content 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.”15 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable 

legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”16 

Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is appropriate if it is clear that the complaint 

could not be saved by amendment.17

At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.18 The court’s review 

is limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference and 

matters of which the court may take judicial notice.19 However, the court need not accept as true 

allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable inferences.20

 

12 See Docket Nos. 10, 20, 37.

13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

14 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). 

16 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

17 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

18 See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

19 See id.

20 See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Twombly, 

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings except under special circumstances.21 Younger abstention is 

required when (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the proceedings implicate important 

state interests and (3) the proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional 

challenges.22

III.

Applying the above standards, Grasmuck’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All three 

elements for Younger abstention are satisfied: there is a state criminal case pending against Hilf, 

that case implicates the important state interest of prosecuting persons that drive with a suspended 

driver’s license,23 and the criminal case is an adequate place for Hilf to raise his Fourth 

Amendment and due process challenges to the traffic stop, alleged detainment and seizure of his 

property. Younger abstention requires the court not to interfere with the state court criminal 

proceedings by adjudicating the validity of the traffic stop, alleged arrest, alleged detainment and 

seizure of Hilf’s car, all of which are at issue in his state criminal case. 

Moreover, Younger abstention also bars the claim against Trujillo for deprivation of 

 

550 U.S. at 561 (holding that “a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not survive a 

motion to dismiss).

21 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

22 See Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 

2515, 2521, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982).

23 See Cal. Veh. Code § 14607.4 (“The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

Of all drivers involved in fatal accidents, more than 20 percent are not licensed to 

drive. A driver with a suspended license is four times as likely to be involved in a 

fatal accident as a properly licensed driver. . . . Californians who comply with the 

law are frequently victims of traffic accidents caused by unlicensed drivers. . . . The 

state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed

drivers from illegally driving.”)

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

property without due process. Although Trujillo did not formally move to dismiss or join 

Grasmuck’s motion, he does plead failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense to Hilf’s 

complaint.24 Hilf had the opportunity to fully brief the Younger issue in his opposition to 

Grasmuck’s motion.25 In light of Hilf and Trujillo’s status as pro se litigants and in the interest of 

controlling its docket, the court takes this defense up now, rather than imposing the burden of 

requiring additional filings on the parties. The due process claim depends on whether Hilf’s 

vehicle was properly impounded pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6, for driving with a 

suspended license. Adjudicating this claim would require assessing the validity of the traffic stop, 

alleged arrest and alleged detainment, and any ruling by the court would interfere with the state 

criminal prosecution for driving with a suspended license.

Because Hilf’s claims arise out of events requiring Younger abstention, leave to amend

would be futile and is DENIED.

IV.

Hilf moves for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Defendants did not timely 

answer his complaint.

26

 This motion is DENIED because Grasmuck timely moved to dismiss27

and thus tolled the deadline for filing an answer,

28 and because the court accepted Trujillo’s late 

answer as timely filed in light of Trujillo’s pro se status.29

Hilf also moves to claim and exercise his Constitutional rights30 and to demand that the 

 

24 See Docket No. 35 at 6.

25 See Docket No. 26.

26 See Docket No. 24.

27 See Docket No. 11.

28 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4).

29 See Docket No. 43.

30 See Docket No. 25.

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

DENYING MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DENYING 

MOTION TO READ ALL PLEADINGS, STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

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

court read all pleadings and adhere to the Constitution, the law and the Bill of Rights.

31 The court 

reads all pleadings and adheres to the law when issuing its rulings. However, these motions are 

DENIED as procedurally improper.

Finally, Hilf filed a notice of removal of his state court criminal case.32 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(c)(1)(A) does not permit the removal of criminal cases; this notice is STRICKEN as 

improper. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

31 See Docket No. 34.

32 See Docket No. 23.

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 44 Filed 01/08/16 Page 6 of 6