Allen v. City of Antioch

Background

The court considered Wenger’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint as to him. The order states that it assumes familiarity with the facts, legal standards, party arguments, and earlier orders addressing Wenger’s two prior dismissal motions.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed Kardell Smith’s and Jamari Allen’s malicious prosecution claims. The plaintiffs conceded that those claims should be dismissed because of the prior order and the lack of new allegations. The court dismissed them without leave to amend.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court did not dismiss Jamari Allen’s claims under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and right to privacy.

On the equal-protection claim, Wenger argued that Allen had not adequately alleged racial animus because Wenger had not used a racial epithet. The court relied on its prior order and concluded that Wenger’s texts, considered in context, easily supported an inference of racial bias even without a specific racial epithet.

On the privacy claim, the court explained that the Ninth Circuit has recognized protection against arbitrary police intrusions into personal privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Allen alleged that Officer Morteza Amiri attacked him with a police dog, photographed injuries to his left leg and hip while he was hospitalized, and distributed those photographs to Wenger and other officers, who celebrated the injuries. Allen also alleged that there was no legitimate lawful basis for taking and distributing the photographs. The court found those allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Wenger’s Alleged Involvement

Wenger argued that he could not be liable because Amiri—not Wenger—made the arrest and took the photographs. The court concluded that the complaint supported an inference that Wenger was an “integral participant” in the alleged constitutional violations. The court cited allegations that Wenger and Amiri exchanged messages about getting involved in an encounter involving a dog bite, discussed using force against Allen, and expressed dislike of body cameras. The complaint also alleged that Wenger had previously asked Amiri for photographs of a suspect’s injuries.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Wenger’s motion to dismiss. The order dismissed Smith’s and Jamari Allen’s malicious prosecution claims without leave to amend, but did not dismiss Jamari Allen’s Section 1983 equal-protection and privacy claims.