Khan v. Daly City Police Department

Background

David Khan brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that approximately 20 defendants violated his federal constitutional rights when they falsely arrested him. He alleged that, on July 15, 2020, in Daly City, Sergeant Joshua Moala and Officer Fulmore unlawfully arrested him and seized his person and property. His complaint also raised claims concerning his criminal proceedings, bail, defense attorney, and jail conditions, as well as claims of municipal liability.

Screening and Claims

Because Khan was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because they seek money from an immune defendant. The court said that pro se pleadings must be read liberally.

The court found that, when read liberally, Khan stated due-process and Fourth Amendment claims against Moala and Fulmore for the alleged unlawful arrest and seizure of his person and for the alleged unlawful seizure of his property. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It stated that the claims concerning Khan’s criminal proceedings, bail, defense attorney, and jail conditions were unrelated by fact, law, and defendant to the alleged illegal arrest. It also found that the municipal-liability claims were too conclusory to proceed. The order does not state whether these dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Orders

The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the operative complaint and attachments on Moala and Fulmore without requiring advance payment of service fees. Those defendants were ordered to respond to the cognizable claims and file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

By May 12, 2025, the defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable. The order explains that any exhaustion defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) must be raised through a summary-judgment motion. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set deadlines for Khan’s opposition and the defendants’ reply. The defendants must provide Khan with a required notice explaining how to oppose summary judgment.

Judge William H. Orrick granted Khan’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The order also instructed Khan to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.