Miguel v. Yue

Background

Joseph Miguel’s amended complaint asserted claims against the County of Alameda, Steven Corral, Ivan Toscano, Kenneth Evoniuk, and others. The claims against the County included a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the alleged seizure of Miguel’s legal papers and USB hardware, a municipal-liability claim alleging an unlawful policy or custom, and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims against Corral included a § 1983 due-process and disclosure claim based on his conduct as a district attorney and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims against Toscano and Evoniuk included the same alleged property-taking claim, the municipal-liability claim, and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The County, Corral, and Toscano and Evoniuk each moved to dismiss the claims against them. Miguel also moved for default judgment against the City of Union City, the Union City Police Department, Toscano, and Evoniuk.

Reasons for Granting the Motions to Dismiss

The court granted the County’s motion. It held that Miguel did not allege facts showing that Toscano and Evoniuk were employed by the County or that their actions were taken under a County policy or practice. A municipal-liability claim under § 1983 requires allegations that an unconstitutional action resulted from an official policy or custom of the municipality.

The court also held that the County was immune from the emotional-distress claim. The complaint’s allegations against Corral concerned his conduct while prosecuting two cases. The court ruled that California Government Code section 821.6 immunized Corral from liability for that conduct and that, under California Government Code section 815.2(b), the County was likewise immune.

The court granted Corral’s motion. It held that prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims concerning actions closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal proceeding, including the alleged failure to investigate claims or provide exculpatory evidence. The court also applied the immunity reasoning described above to the emotional-distress claim against Corral.

The court granted Toscano and Evoniuk’s motion. It ruled that the alleged seizure did not support a Takings Clause claim because Miguel alleged that the property was seized during an illegal search and seizure, rather than taken for public use. The court further held that a municipal-liability claim can be asserted against a municipality, not against individual officers. Finally, the court ruled that the emotional-distress claim was subject to dismissal because Miguel did not allege that he presented the claim to the City before filing suit, as required for state-law claims against individual employees of a municipality.

Default Judgment

The court denied Miguel’s motion for default judgment. Under the required two-step process, the clerk must first enter a defendant’s default before the court can enter default judgment. The clerk had not entered default against any of the Union City defendants, and the docket showed that the City and the Union City Police Department had answered while Toscano and Evoniuk had filed a motion to dismiss. The court therefore ruled that Miguel could not establish that those defendants had failed to plead or otherwise defend themselves.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted the motions to dismiss filed for the County, Corral, Toscano, and Evoniuk, and denied Miguel’s motion for default judgment against the Union City defendants. Judge Maxine M. Chesney gave Miguel permission to file a second amended complaint concerning his claims against the County, Corral, Toscano, and/or Evoniuk by August 9, 2024. If he amended, he could not add new defendants or claims without first obtaining the court’s permission.