Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California

Background

Tyghe James Mullin filed the case without a lawyer. He submitted an application to proceed without paying filing fees and later filed a first amended complaint. The case was reassigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman after the first complaint and first amended complaint had not been screened.

The court found, based on Mullin’s affidavit describing his lack of financial resources, that he qualified to proceed without paying filing fees. The application was therefore granted.

Claims and screening

Because the court granted this status, it was required to screen the first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That screening requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Mullin’s first claim alleged that Mountain View police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by using an Apple AirTag to track his property without a warrant and by unlawfully searching and seizing private property. The court said he did not explain what the AirTag was attached to, why police were tracking it, or what property was searched and seized.

His second claim alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation based on his attorney’s failure to file necessary motions and the denial of a fair trial. The court said he did not provide details about the charges for which he was tried.

His third claim sought to hold the City of Mountain View responsible under the rule commonly called municipal liability, which can apply when a city’s policy, custom, or practice causes a constitutional violation. The court found that Mullin had not alleged with enough specificity how the City’s policies, customs, or practices caused the alleged violations.

Ruling

The court dismissed Mullin’s federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with leave to amend. This means the complaint was dismissed at the screening stage, but the court allowed Mullin an opportunity to file an amended pleading. Because the federal claims were not viable as pleaded, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The order granted the application to proceed without paying filing fees, dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend, set May 7, 2025, as the deadline for an amended pleading, and stated that Mullin could not add parties or claims without the court’s permission. The defendants were not required to respond unless and until Mullin filed a pleading that survived initial screening.