Washington v. Muela

Background

Jason Levette Washington sued R. Muela, an individual police officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights, and under California’s Bane Act. Washington alleged that on February 21, 2025, Muela designated an area as a “safe work area” or “work zone” under Oakland Municipal Code § 9.06.050. Washington said he questioned the officers about the designation, after which Muela arrested and cited him. Washington alleged that he was detained without probable cause while garden property was destroyed.

Washington asserted claims involving the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He stated that he was seeking monetary damages, but he also requested an injunction barring interference with his property rights and personal liberty. He filed an application to proceed without paying court fees and moved for a temporary restraining order.

Fee Application and Complaint Screening

The court granted Washington’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires the court to dismiss a complaint filed without fees if it is legally insufficient, malicious, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must include enough facts to make the requested relief plausible, rather than relying only on conclusions.

Unlawful-Arrest Claim

The court held that Washington had not adequately pleaded that the arrest lacked probable cause. The municipal code provision cited in the complaint made it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave an area designated as a safe work zone after an officer’s request. The court said Washington did not allege what property had been designated, where he was in relation to that area, or that he was outside the designated area when detained. He also alleged that he was willing to comply but did not say that he actually complied with the instruction to leave before the arrest.

The court also found that Washington’s allegations about the destroyed garden property were too vague. He did not identify whether the property was his, where he was in relation to it, how long he was detained, or how the detention occurred. His conclusory statement that Muela lacked probable cause was therefore insufficient to state a federal unlawful-arrest claim.

First Amendment Claim

The court explained that people generally have First Amendment protection to verbally challenge police action without risking arrest. But a retaliatory-arrest claim requires facts connecting retaliatory intent to the injury, and the plaintiff generally must plead that the arrest lacked probable cause. Because Washington had not sufficiently pleaded the absence of probable cause, the court found that his First Amendment claim also failed at that stage.

Fifth Amendment Claim

The court found that Washington had not adequately pleaded a property-taking claim. Although he alleged that his arrest and the threat of arrest coerced him to give up immediate control of property for destruction, he did not identify what property was destroyed, show that he had a property interest in it, or allege facts showing that Muela took the property for public use.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

The court found that Washington had not adequately pleaded either substantive or procedural due process violations. For substantive due process, he did not allege facts plausibly showing that Muela acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or without a legitimate governmental objective. For procedural due process, Washington did not sufficiently allege a protected property interest. The court also concluded that, because he had not adequately pleaded an unlawful arrest, he had not shown a separate deprivation of liberty without required procedures based on the same arrest.

California Bane Act Claim

Because Washington’s Bane Act claim was based on the same conduct as his inadequately pleaded federal claims, the court found that the Bane Act claim also failed. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but allowed Washington to amend it.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied Washington’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The requested order sought to restrain the City of Oakland from removing, destroying, or interfering with property on a public street. The court noted that the City was not a named defendant in this case, Washington had not identified which property belonged to him, and the motion raised speech and religious-expression allegations that were not included in the complaint and were not sufficiently supported.

The court also noted that Washington had said he sought monetary damages and had not shown that money damages would be inadequate. In addition, the court found that he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order, granted the application to proceed without paying court fees, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Washington had until August 7, 2025, to file an amended complaint. The court stated that if he did not do so, judgment would be entered in Muela’s favor.