Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Xavier Becerra
Defendant
Gavin Newsome
Defendant
Oladapo Olajide
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

OLADAPO OLAJIDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOME, in his official capacity 

as Governor of California, and XAVIER 

BECERRA, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of California,

Defendants.

No. C 19-08048 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

In this civil rights action by a pro se plaintiff, sufficient facts have not been pled against 

California’s Governor and Attorney General, so the claim must be DISMISSED.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff raised constitutional claims against California Governor Gavin Newsom 

and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Plaintiff asserts that on two separate instances 

in 2004 for 2017, police officers drew their weapons on him. The First Amended Complaint 

alleges that a fear of police has since seeped into plaintiff’s daily life, and he feels threatened by 

California Highway Patrol whenever he drives. Plaintiff does not assert a factual connection 

between the incidents and any actions of the current Governor and Attorney General, so 

defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 34 Filed 03/11/20 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

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s pleadings are insufficient on law and fact to state a claim for relief. The First 

Amended Complaint seeks to bring legal action under the Magna Carta, as well as violations of 

the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. A hearing on 

the motion was scheduled for Thursday, March 5. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to 

submit the motion on the papers. The hearing was vacated. This order considers the parties' 

briefings without oral argument. 

Remedy cannot be sought under the Magna Carta. Claims for relief must be grounded 

in the law of the United States or, in diversity jurisdiction, the law of a state. The Magna Carta, 

revered though it may be in history, is not law supporting a claim for relief. 

Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection claims are insufficiently raised under 

Section 1983, because the First Amended Complaint fails to identify any conduct by 

Governor Newsom or Attorney General Becerra in connection to the 2004 and 2017 police 

encounters. Plaintiff asserts that the conduct was linked to the “Governor’s regime.” A Section 

1983 claim is only sufficient when the plaintiff alleges an actual connection between the actions 

of named defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A plaintiff must assert specific facts connecting named defendants 

to the alleged constitutional deprivation; “vague and conclusory allegations” remain insufficient 

to withstand a motion to dismiss. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, the First Amended Complaint raises no specific allegations against defendants, beyond 

their overall involvement in the “regime.” Furthermore, the named defendants had not yet even 

assumed office when the alleged police encounters occurred. 

Leave to amend would be futile, as Section 1983 claims, recognized as personal injury 

suits under relevant law, are held to a two-year statute of limitations. As the last alleged police 

incident occurred in 2017, the claim is barred. 

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 34 Filed 03/11/20 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

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Being futile, 

leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment shall be entered. If plaintiff wishes to appeal, he must be 

mindful to file his motion of appeal within thirty days of entry of judgment, and timely perfect his 

appeal at the court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 34 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3