Arellano v. Concord CA Police Department

Background

Stephen Arellano filed this case asserting defamation based on an encounter at the Concord Police Department on November 9, 2024. Arellano alleged that an unnamed police officer turned on a body camera, refused to accept a package, said, “I’m not taking that, it might contain a BOMB or poison,” later said he would throw the package in the garbage, and refused to provide his name. Arellano retrieved the package through a metal gate.

The complaint also repeated allegations concerning the murder of Arellano’s son and the investigation and prosecution of the person who murdered him. Those allegations had been addressed in an earlier related case, which the court had dismissed with prejudice; the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The court stated that those allegations could not be reasserted as the basis for another case.

Motions

Arellano moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144 to disqualify Judge William Orrick. He relied mainly on the judge’s rulings in the earlier related case, including the dismissal of claims against judges, prosecutors, and a police officer, as well as conclusory allegations about the judge’s past political affiliations.

The defendant moved to dismiss and to strike a paragraph concerning District Attorney Diana Becton. The court denied the motion to strike, stating that although the allegations were likely irrelevant, little would be gained by removing them.

Defamation claim

The court treated defamation as the only cause of action actually alleged in the body of the complaint. It rejected the claim for several stated reasons:

- The statement about a possible bomb or poison was rhetorical hyperbole or a non-actionable opinion, not a factual assertion that could support defamation. The court reasoned that the officer’s conduct—leaving the package inside the gate and allowing Arellano to retrieve it—made it implausible that the officer actually believed the package contained a bomb or poison. - Arellano did not allege that anyone viewed the body-camera recording. The court therefore found that he had not pleaded publication, meaning communication of the allegedly defamatory statement to another person. - The court also noted that comments made during a citizen’s report to police generally receive an absolute privilege under California law when made during an official proceeding.

The court did not reach the defendant’s arguments concerning the federal and state statutes listed in the complaint’s caption because it found that the complaint was based solely on defamation and contained no facts supporting claims under those statutes.

Ruling

Judge William Orrick denied Arellano’s motion to disqualify because prior adverse rulings ordinarily do not establish judicial bias, and the motion did not provide a timely and legally sufficient affidavit or facts supporting disqualification. The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the defamation claim without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court also denied the motion to strike.