Miguel v. Yue
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:23-cv-06350
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Miguel v. Yue, Judge Chesney denied Miguel’s continuance and granted Union City judgment on the pleadings, dismissing specified claims while allowing limited amendment.
Joseph Miguel’s claims against City of Union City and Union City Police Department were dismissed or made subject to dismissal on pleading and presentment grounds, but he received limited leave to amend; remaining claims against Katie Yue were unaffected by this order.
What happened
In Joseph Miguel v. Katie Yue, Union City asked the court to rule against the claims based only on the allegations in Miguel’s amended complaint. Miguel, who represented himself, asked for more time to respond while Union City investigated allegedly corrupted evidence.
The court denied the continuance because the proposed investigation concerned evidence and proof, while Union City’s motion challenged whether Miguel’s allegations were legally sufficient. The court granted Union City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed Miguel’s physical-taking claim and his claim alleging an unconstitutional municipal policy, custom, or procedure. The court also ruled that his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was subject to dismissal because he did not allege that he presented it to Union City before filing suit.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney gave Miguel limited permission to file a second amended complaint by October 4, 2024, to amend claims against Union City. He could not add defendants or claims without court permission. If he did not amend, the case would continue on his remaining claims against Katie Yue.
The detailed version
- Miguel v. Yue · No. 3:23-cv-06350
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Defendants City of Union City and Union City Police Department, collectively called “Union City” in the opinion, filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. That type of motion challenges whether the complaint states legally sufficient claims, assuming the complaint’s factual allegations are true. Joseph Miguel, who proceeded without a lawyer, filed a motion for a continuance, apparently seeking more time to respond while Union City investigated allegedly corrupted evidence involving a radio call.
The court explained that the alleged investigation would concern proof of the allegations, but Union City’s motion addressed only whether Miguel’s amended complaint was legally sufficient. The court therefore denied Miguel’s motion for a continuance and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Rulings on the Union City Claims
The court granted Union City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as follows:
- Paragraph 23: physical-taking claim. Miguel labeled this claim “42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of 5th Amendment” and alleged that two Union City police officers improperly seized property from his home. The court dismissed the claim. It reasoned that a constitutional takings claim requires a taking for public use, while Miguel alleged that the property was seized during an illegal search and seizure. The court also stated that without a constitutional violation, there could be no municipal liability under the statute.
- Paragraph 24: municipal policy, custom, or procedure claim. The court dismissed this claim, which alleged deprivations of Miguel’s First and Fourth Amendment rights and referenced “Monell and Bane.” The First Amendment portion failed because the amended complaint included no facts showing that Union City or its employees deprived Miguel of a First Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment portion failed because, although the complaint alleged that officers entered the home’s surrounding area and the home without a warrant or consent, it did not provide facts showing that those events occurred under a Union City policy, custom, or procedure. The state-law portion referenced by “Bane” also failed because Miguel did not allege that he presented the claim to Union City before filing suit.
- Paragraph 26: intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court stated that this claim was subject to dismissal because Miguel did not allege that he presented it to Union City before filing the action.
Leave to Amend and Case Status
The court afforded Miguel limited leave to file a second amended complaint by October 4, 2024, for the purpose of amending claims against Union City. The court prohibited him from adding new defendants or claims without first obtaining permission. If Miguel chose not to amend, the action would proceed on the remaining claims against Katie Yue.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.