Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00615/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The facts are taken largely from plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff attached copies of several

Hayward Police Department reports to the complaint, and defendants have separately submitted these

reports, as well as other evidence, in support of the motion to dismiss. To the extent the parties’

evidence provides a factual context for plaintiff’s allegations, the Court will consider these documents

for that limited purpose. However, to the extent the parties dispute the facts, the Court may not resolve

these disputes on a motion to dismiss and must instead assume the truth of plaintiff’s allegations.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD A. BARSCH

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL O’TOOLE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00615 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion is scheduled for a hearing

on June 22, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court DENIES the motion.

BACKGROUND1

Pro se plaintiff Edward Barsch is the father of Jean and Wayne Barsch. On January 31, 2006,

Jean contacted the Hayward Police Department (HPD) and told the police that her brother, Wayne, had

threatened to kill her. Complaint ¶ 19. The complaint alleges that on that same day Wayne arrived at

plaintiff’s home, and plaintiff realized that Wayne was having a “psychotic incident.” Id. Plaintiff left

Wayne at the house and went to the Hayward Police Station to notify them of Wayne’s condition and

recommend that they take him into temporary protective custody. Id. The complaint further alleges,

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 According to the complaint, in 1997 Novato police officers confiscated “a gun safe containing

a firearm collection of about 26 various types of firearms and other types of weapons,” and “as part of

the conditions for return of the gun safe the Novato California Police Department extracted a promise

from the plaintiff that the gun safe and contents would not be stored within the city limits of Novato,

California.” Id. The complaint states that Jean Barsch stored the firearms collection at her house for

a while, and that on January 29, 2006, Jean brought the collection to plaintiff’s house in Hayward. Id. The police reports attached to the complaint state that the firearms collection belonged to Wayne.

See id. Ex. A at 5. The official police report states that thirty-five firearms were recovered from

plaintiff’s house, including four illegal assault weapons. Luevano Decl., Ex. A, at 11-12. Of these, the

police report states that six were registered to Wayne and the rest came back unregistered. Id. at 12.

Plaintiff alleges that he owned at least some of the firearms that were seized from his house.

2

“[i]nstead the Hayward Police mounted a full scale swat team assault to take [Wayne] into custody. The

swat team had plaintiff’s residence under surveillance since earlier in the day as a result of Jean Barsch’s

complaint to the Hayward Police.” Id. 

After police officers arrested Wayne outside of plaintiff’s house, the police conducted a

warrantless search of the home and seized numerous firearms. The complaint alleges,

While I was at the Hayward Police Station Wayne Barsch left plaintiff’s house and was

outside on the public sidewalk talking to a neighbor. The swat team took him into

custody without incident. After taking Wayne Barsch into custody the Hayward Police

then entered my house without warrant, probable cause or other extenuating

circumstances. The Hayward Police delayed plaintiff’s returning to plaintiff’s home

until well after they had illegally entered my home. The police confiscated the firearm

collection2

 that had been returned two days earlier plus searched plaintiff’s home and

confiscated some of my personal firearms plus other property that was not firearms such

as an air rifle and other non-firearms. While the police were still in plaintiff’s house I

asked for an inventory of all material taken from my home. That request was refused.

Id. The complaint further alleges that the HPD subsequently provided four different reasons – all false

– regarding why they searched plaintiff’s house. Id. 

Wayne was criminally prosecuted for possession of assault weapons, criminal threats, violation

of a court order, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. See Hom Decl. Ex. B.

Following his conviction, the seized weapons were sold or destroyed pursuant to court orders issued by

the Alameda Superior Court. Id.

In February 2006 plaintiff filed two written complaints with the HPD regarding the search of his

home and the seizure of the firearms, and alleging that the police reports contained false statements.

See Complaint Ex. C, D. The City of Hayward rejected both complaints on March 22, 2006. Id. Ex.

D. The “Notice of Rejection of Claim” states, in relevant part, 

Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six months from the date this notice was

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file an action in the California state court

on this claim. (See California Government Code, section 945.6.) This warning does not

apply to statutes of limitations for federal causes of action.

Id. The proof of service attached to the Notice of Rejection of Claim states that the Notice was served

on plaintiff by mail on March 22, 2006. Id. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 30, 2007, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and

various claims under California Law. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply

with the California Tort Claims Act. Defendants also move to dismiss the federal claims for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question presented by a motion to dismiss

is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer

evidence in support of the claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d

556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is

remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. See

United States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981).

If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The

Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by

the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

DISCUSSION

I. Failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act 

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claims are barred by his failure to comply with the presentment

requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. In particular, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to

file suit within the six month time-frame mandated by Section 911.2 of the California Government

Code. To the extent that defendants seek to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claims on this basis, the Court

finds defendant’s motion lacks merit. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Notice of Rejection

of Claims explicitly states that the requirement to file a lawsuit within six months “does not apply to

statutes of limitations for federal causes of action.” Hom Decl., Ex. D. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has

held that the California Tort Claims Act does not apply to § 1983 claims. See Harding v. Galceran, 889

F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1989) (California Tort Claims Act preempted as inconsistent with the purpose and

nature of § 1983 actions). 

However, the Court agrees that any state claims would be barred by plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the presentment requirements. The California Tort Claims Act provides, in pertinent part, that “no

suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action [against a public

entity or employee] until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been

acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . .” Cal. Gov. Code

§ 945.4. If a claim is rejected, the public entity must provide written notice. See id. § 913. “Such

notice may be in substantially the following form:”

Notice is hereby given that the claim which you presented to the (insert title of board or

officer) on (indicate date) was (indicate whether rejected, allowed, allowed in the amount

of $_____ _____ and rejected as to the balance, rejected by operation of law, or other

appropriate language, whichever is applicable) on (indicate date of action or rejection

by operation of law).

Id. Section 913 also requires that a rejection notice state: 

Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was

personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See

Government Code Section 945.6. 

WARNING

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.

If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

 The Court also notes that the only state claims alleged in the complaint are violations of the

California Penal Code. The Court is not aware of any private right to sue for Penal Code violations.

4

 Defendants apparently construe these claims as solely alleging due process violations.

Defendants have not cited any authority in support of their motion to dismiss these “due process”

claims. While the Court has concerns about whether plaintiff can maintain § 1983 claims for violations

of the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments, defendants have not advanced any basis for dismissal at

this stage. 

5

Id.

Plaintiff timely filed his complaint with the HPD. The City of Hayward complied with the

requirements of Section 913 in its March 22, 2006 rejection of plaintiff’s complaint. The City served

the written notice of rejection on plaintiff by mail at his residence. Hom Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff claims

in his opposition that the Proof of Service is unsigned, and therefore that it is invalid. However, the

Proof of Service was signed. See Hom. Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff was thus put on notice that he had only

six months to file an action in California court based on his claim. Plaintiff has not presented any

reason to discount defendants’ evidence. Plaintiff did not file a state law claim within that six month

period, therefore he is barred from doing so now.3

 

II. Failure to state a claim 

Defendants advance three grounds for dismissing plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. First, defendants

argue that plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments

should be dismissed because plaintiff “received all the process that is due” with regard to the seized

firearms.4

 Motion at 8. However, whether the weapons were properly seized and sold is disputed, and

at this state of the litigation the Court cannot resolve this factual question. 

Second, defendants assert that the “legal principles of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata serve

as a complete bar to Edward relitigating issues already disposed of in a prior court proceeding.” Motion

at 8. Defendants apparently contend that the criminal prosecution of Wayne bars plaintiff’s claims in

this case. Aside from submitting various documents associated with Wayne’s criminal case, defendants

do not develop this argument either factually or legally. Defendants may renew this argument in a

subsequent motion, if appropriate. 

Finally, defendants argue that the Fourth Amendment claims fail because the search of plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

home and the seizure of firearms was reasonable, and relatedly because the officers are entitled to

qualified immunity. Defendants have submitted extensive evidence outside the complaint and have

asked the Court to examine the “totality of the circumstances” to find defendants’ actions legal.

However, where “the factual predicate for [defendant’s] argument is not found in the complaint, but

rather in the affidavits filed in support of [the] motion. . . [r]espondent must be given an opportunity to

have discovery to test the accuracy and completeness of the factual basis for the immunity claim.”

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 658 (1987). Because defendants’ Fourth Amendment arguments

require a factual analysis outside the scope of complaint, defendants’ motion is premature. Defendants

may renew these contentions in connection with a motion for summary judgment and upon a proper

factual record. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

[Docket No. 4.] The Court GRANTS defendants’ request for judicial notice. [Docket No. 7.] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007.

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00615-SI Document 21 Filed 06/21/07 Page 6 of 6