Scarlett v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Sidney Theodore Scarlett sued the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, Jeffrey Francis Rosen, Charles Y. Huang, Amir Reza Alemzadeh, Molly O’Neal, Howard Goldman, and unidentified defendants. The lawsuit concerned Scarlett’s February 2015 arrest, his treatment in jail, the removal of the contents of his home, and the criminal prosecution that followed. The prosecution was dismissed in the interest of justice on December 2, 2022.

The complaint’s caption listed nine claims, but the court found that the complaint actually asserted four: a Fourth Amendment detention-and-arrest claim against unidentified defendants; a First Amendment claim against all defendants; a California false-arrest and false-imprisonment claim against unidentified defendants; and a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, commonly called the Bane Act, against all defendants.

This was the sixth lawsuit Scarlett had brought concerning these events. The defendants moved to dismiss and asked the court to enter a pre-filing order declaring Scarlett a vexatious litigant and restricting future federal lawsuits concerning the foreclosure, arrest, prosecution, criminal defense, or related civil litigation.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The court first addressed the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. Scarlett did not dispute defendants’ argument that the Sheriff’s Office was not a proper defendant, so the court treated that issue as conceded and dismissed the Sheriff’s Office from the case.

The court next ruled that claims against Rosen, O’Neal, and Goldman were barred by issue preclusion, a rule that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was actually decided and was necessary to an earlier judgment. The court found that Scarlett’s allegations against Rosen and O’Neal repeated issues addressed in earlier proceedings. It also found that the allegations against Goldman repeated an earlier claim that he failed to protect Scarlett’s constitutional rights. The court additionally stated that the allegations against O’Neal were too sparse to state a claim and that the allegation about Goldman’s statement, although alarming, did not state a claim.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

The court held that Scarlett failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against the County. A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly violated the Constitution. The plaintiff must instead connect the violation to an official policy, practice, custom, final policymaker, or ratification. The court found Scarlett’s allegations of coordinated misconduct too vague and speculative to establish such a municipal basis for liability. It also stated that a municipal claim requires an underlying constitutional violation.

The court also held that Scarlett failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Huang and Alem. The alleged retaliatory arrest and imprisonment occurred before those prosecutors became involved. In addition, the court ruled that absolute prosecutorial immunity protected the conduct alleged against Huang and Alem, including courtroom actions, plea-related conduct, and other acts closely connected to the criminal prosecution. The court did not reach defendants’ separate argument that the claim was untimely.

Bane Act Claim

The court held that Scarlett failed to state a Bane Act claim against the County, Huang, or Alem. The claim Scarlett presented to the County in May 2023 concerned his February 2015 arrest. Under California law, a claim for personal-injury damages against a public entity generally must be presented within six months after the claim accrues. The court concluded that Scarlett’s Bane Act claim accrued when he was arrested and that his 2023 claim was more than eight years late. The record did not show that he applied for permission to present a late claim.

The court also found that the claim presented to the County and the Bane Act allegations in the complaint did not involve Huang or Alem’s conduct after the arrest. Because the claim against the public entity was barred, the court ruled that the related claim against public employees was barred as well.

Unidentified Defendants and Punitive Damages

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and false-arrest or false-imprisonment claims against the unidentified defendants. It accepted defendants’ argument that the case could not proceed solely against unidentified defendants because they could not be served without identifying information. Scarlett did not respond to this argument.

The court did not separately decide defendants’ argument concerning punitive damages against the County because the order dismissed the County from the case altogether.

Prejudice and Leave to Amend

The court denied leave to amend and ordered dismissal with prejudice. It concluded that amendment would be futile because Scarlett could not plead around the problems with his First Amendment retaliation and Bane Act claims. The court also stated that Scarlett had already had six opportunities to litigate the same general allegations and was not entitled to a seventh.

Prefiling Motion

The court denied the motion for a pre-filing order. Such an order is an exceptional restriction that requires notice, an adequate record, findings that the litigant’s filings are frivolous or harassing, and a narrowly tailored restriction. Although the court found that the complaint failed to state a claim and included improper defendants, it concluded that the lawsuit was not frivolous or harassing in context. The court noted that Scarlett understood an earlier dismissal as allowing him to return to federal court after the criminal prosecution ended.

The court cautioned that this dismissal with prejudice meant Scarlett could not return and refile these claims. It stated that defendants might have stronger grounds for seeking a pre-filing order if he did so. The final order therefore granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied the motion for a pre-filing order.