Khan v. Daly City Police Department

Background

David Khan brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. He alleged that on April 28, 2020, Daly City police officers and detectives unlawfully arrested him at his residence, entered the residence, and searched and seized his property. He named roughly 25 defendants.

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or officer. The court was required to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court concluded that Khan stated due-process and Fourth Amendment claims against Daly City police officers Charles Baroni, Jerel Tualaulelei, and Jose Ortega. The claims concern the alleged unlawful arrest and seizure of Khan’s person and the alleged unlawful search and seizure of his property.

Claims and Defendants Dismissed

The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It found that Khan had provided specific factual allegations only against Baroni, Tualaulelei, and Ortega. His First Amendment retaliation claims against the Daly City Police Department and the San Mateo County District Attorney were too vague. The court also stated that the district attorney was immune from suit under § 1983 for actions taken as a prosecutor.

The court found that Khan’s Fifth Amendment claims against police officers were conclusory and that his unlawful-arrest claim properly belonged under the Fourth Amendment. It rejected his excessive-bail claim because bail is determined by the court and the court is immune from suit. It also found that claims against Khan’s court-appointed defense attorney were barred by immunity for actions taken as counsel. Finally, the alleged conspiracy among the district attorney, sheriff, courts, and others was too conclusory to proceed.

The court warned that the claims might be barred by the statute of limitations. It explained that § 1983 claims generally use a two-year limitations period in California and stated that Khan filed suit in July 2022, more than two years after the April 28, 2020 incidents. The court also noted that the case had been dismissed in 2022 for failure to prosecute and was not reopened until 2024. The court did not make a final limitations ruling in this order.

Orders for Further Proceedings

The clerk was ordered to issue summonses, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve the operative complaint and attachments on Baroni, Tualaulelei, and Ortega without requiring advance payment of fees. The three defendants were ordered to answer or otherwise respond.

The defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion concerning the claims the court found cognizable by May 12, 2025. The court provided instructions concerning motions based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, summary-judgment evidence, opposition and reply deadlines, discovery, communications with the court, address updates, prosecution of the case, and requests for extensions. No hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.

Judge William Orrick granted Khan’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.