Gutierrez v. City of Antioch

Background

Giovanni Gutierrez, Christian Gutierrez, and Rosalba Zendejas proceeded without lawyers and sued the City of Antioch, the Antioch Police Department, and six individual police officers. Their claims arose from a May 5, 2007 traffic stop and alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with California-law claims. The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without paying the filing fee and therefore had to screen the pleadings under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The plaintiffs filed an original complaint on March 19, 2024, an amended complaint on March 29, 2024, and a second amended complaint on June 20, 2024. The court found that the March 29 amendment was permitted as a matter of course, but the June 20 second amendment was filed without the opposing parties’ consent or the court’s permission and was procedurally defective. Because it was unclear whether the March 29 amendment was intended to replace or supplement the original complaint, the court screened both pleadings together.

Screening Analysis

The court found that the complaint was not malicious, meaning it did not appear to have been filed with an intent to harm the defendants. The court nevertheless found that at least some claims were frivolous because of standing problems. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury rather than assert someone else’s rights. Zendejas alleged violations of her sons’ rights arising from a traffic stop that did not involve her, and she did not allege a violation of her own constitutional rights. The court therefore concluded that she could not assert those claims on her sons’ behalf. The court also found it unclear what claims Christian and Giovanni asserted for themselves because neither signed the original complaint and the pleading did not link specific allegations to either of them.

The court further found that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It did not clearly identify which defendant allegedly harmed the plaintiffs in several claims. References to “DA” and “police officers involved” did not provide enough information to give the defendants fair notice of the allegations. The timeline of the alleged events was also unclear. The court noted that the claims appeared to arise from events more than seventeen years before filing and that the apparent two-year limitations period for California personal-injury claims could bar the § 1983 claims, although the court allowed amendment to explain the timeline and any basis for tolling.

Claims 3, 4, and 5 relied on California criminal statutes. The court held that private citizens may not bring claims based solely on another person’s alleged violation of criminal law, so those claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Claim 7 alleged libel under California Civil Code § 44 based on a police report. The court stated that such a state-law claim could proceed in federal court through supplemental jurisdiction only if adequately pleaded federal claims supplied a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction. It also noted that the apparent one-year limitations period for libel could bar Claim 7.

The court identified additional pleading problems. The plaintiffs had filed their allegations and claims in a piecemeal manner instead of submitting one complete amended pleading. The original complaint was signed only by Zendejas, even though all three plaintiffs were representing themselves. The court also directed the plaintiffs to clarify whether they sued the defendants in official or personal capacities and what monetary relief they sought, because immunity rules may apply to damages claims against officials in their official capacities.

Disposition

Judge Peter H. Kang dismissed without prejudice the original complaint, the March 29 amended complaint, and the June 20 second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by December 20, 2024, addressing the standing, pleading, amendment, signature, jurisdiction, limitations, and immunity issues described in the order. The dismissal did not decide whether the alleged constitutional or state-law violations actually occurred.