Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0195 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS CAUSES OF ACTION

ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANTS

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT

AND OFFICER ANTHONY JACKSON;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 21)

Before the Court is the motion filed March 5, 2007 by defendants Richmond Police

Department (“Department”) and Officer Anthony Jackson (“Officer Jackson”) to dismiss the

claims asserted against them, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff Le Roi Johnson (“Johnson”) has filed opposition; defendants have filed

a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R.

7-1(b), hereby VACATES the April 13, 2007 hearing, and rules as follows.

1. All claims asserted against the Department are subject to dismissal because

Johnson fails to allege any unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom of the Department. 

See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Accordingly, the

motion to dismiss all claims asserted against the Department is hereby GRANTED and all

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 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

2

such claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. Johnson’s claim against Officer Jackson for violation of the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution is subject to dismissal because Johnson concedes that he

was arrested and charged with brandishing a weapon and obstruction of justice, (see

Compl. at 3:8-10), not because of his speech. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth by

defendants, the motion to dismiss Johnson’s claim against Officer Jackson for violation of

the First Amendment is hereby GRANTED, and such claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. Johnson’s claim against Officer Jackson for violation of the Eighth Amendment is

subject to dismissal because the protections of the Eighth Amendment apply only after

conviction, see, e.g., City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244

(1983) (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n.40 (1977)), and Johnson concedes

the charges against him were dismissed, (see Compl. at 3:17). Accordingly, for the

reasons set forth by defendants, the motion to dismiss Johnson’s claim against Officer

Jackson for violation of the Eighth Amendment is hereby GRANTED, and such claim is

DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. Johnson’s claim against Officer Jackson for violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment is not subject to dismissal. The Ninth Circuit has held that “there is a clearly

established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the

basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” See

Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). As plaintiff alleges

Officer Jackson “filed a false police report in order to justify arresting [plaintiff],” (see Compl.

at 5), plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a due process claim against Officer Jackson. See id.;

see also Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987) (reversing

dismissal of § 1983 claim based on allegation that police officers “contrived charges to

justify the arrest, submitted false police reports and initiated his criminal prosecution in bad

faith”). Officer Jackson is not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff’s due process

right is sufficiently clear that no reasonable officer could believe it was lawful to draft a false

police report for purposes of justifying plaintiff’s arrest. See Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1074-

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 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

3

75; Usher, 828 F.2d at 562; see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the 14th amendment claims asserted against

Officer Jackson is hereby DENIED.

4. Officer Jackson shall answer the complaint within 14 days of the date this order is

filed.

5. If plaintiff wishes to amend his allegations against the Department, any amended

complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days from the date this order is filed.

This order terminates Docket No. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3