Ross v. County of Lake

Background

Andre M. Ross sued County of Lake, Demetrius Donaldson, Jeffrey Mora, Corey Paulich, Rob Howe, Mireya G. Turner, and Officer C. Colen. He alleged constitutional violations involving the inspection and tagging of his motor vehicle, his arrest after firing a warning shot during an attempted vehicle theft, his booking photograph, and the collection of his DNA. His amended complaint asserted five causes of action, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim that the County had an unconstitutional policy or practice, privacy-related claims, a claim under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, and a Fourth Amendment claim concerning entry onto his property.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.

Vehicle inspection and tagging

The court dismissed Ross’s Fourth Amendment claims concerning the entry onto his property and the tagging of his vehicle. Ross alleged that the vehicle was parked at his residential address, but he did not allege where specifically it was parked or facts about fences, shrubbery, barriers, visibility, or other features supporting a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court held that the vehicle’s presence on his property, standing alone, was insufficient to support that expectation.

The court also dismissed Ross’s Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning the vehicle tagging. It held that the amended complaint still did not allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss these vehicle-tagging claims without leave to amend because Ross had already been told of the deficiencies and had not cured them.

Unlawful-arrest claims

The court dismissed Ross’s claims that his arrest lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Ross alleged that he fired one shotgun shell as a warning to people breaking into his vehicle. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not plausibly show that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to believe he had violated California Penal Code section 246.3, which concerns intentionally and unlawfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner that could result in injury or death.

The court found that Ross’s descriptions of the shot as safe, sober, and appropriate were conclusions rather than factual allegations. The complaint did not state where Ross stood, in what direction he fired, or where the people he intended to scare away were located. The court also held that the absence of injuries or property damage did not defeat probable cause because section 246.3 does not require an intent to cause harm. The court did not consider additional facts contained only in Ross’s opposition and declaration. It granted dismissal of the unlawful-arrest claims without leave to amend.

DNA swab

The court dismissed Ross’s claim that the forced collection of his DNA violated his privacy or constitutional rights. The court had previously explained that the Ninth Circuit had upheld California’s DNA-collection scheme as applied to people arrested for or charged with felony offenses. Ross’s amended complaint still did not allege the grounds for his arrest, including whether he was arrested for a felony or misdemeanor.

The court declined to accept the defendants’ arrest report for the truth of its statement that Ross was arrested for a felony. Because Ross himself did not allege the basis for his arrest, the court held that he had not plausibly alleged that the DNA swab was unconstitutional. The court granted dismissal of the DNA claim without leave to amend.

County-policy claims

The court dismissed Ross’s claims against County of Lake based on an alleged policy, custom, or practice. These claims are commonly called municipal-liability or Monell claims. The court held that Ross had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation and had not identified a specific County policy, custom, or practice that caused one. His allegations largely recited the legal elements without explaining what the alleged informal policy or custom was.

The court nevertheless granted Ross leave to amend a claim that County of Lake had a policy of posting photographs of arrestees and that the policy violated his constitutional rights. The court noted that the defendants’ motion did not address the legal sufficiency of that particular claim, although Ross had improperly embedded it among other causes of action. The dismissal of all other County-policy claims was without leave to amend.

Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim

The court dismissed Ross’s claim under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act as untimely. Ross alleged that his government claim was rejected on or about June 24, 2024, but did not provide an exact rejection date. The court explained that, using June 24 as the relevant date, the filing deadline was December 24, 2024, while Ross filed his complaint on December 30, 2024. Even using June 26, 2024—the mailing date identified by the defendants—the deadline would have been December 26, 2024, still before Ross’s filing.

The court did not consider Ross’s declaration as evidence on the motion to dismiss. It also concluded that amendment would be futile even if Ross alleged that he went to the courthouse on December 24, that it closed early, and that he delivered the complaint on December 27. The court granted dismissal of the Bane Act claim without leave to amend and denied Ross’s request to amend that claim because amendment would be futile.

Claims against individual defendants

The court dismissed the individual-capacity claims against Rob Howe, Demetrius Donaldson, Jeffrey Mora, and Corey Paulich without leave to amend. The amended complaint did not allege that these officials personally took actions violating the Constitution. Ross’s opposition and declaration included additional allegations concerning some of them, but those allegations were not in the amended complaint and could not be used to supply missing allegations on a motion to dismiss. The court also concluded that further amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Except for the claim concerning County of Lake’s alleged policy of posting Ross’s arrest photograph, the claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The court permitted Ross to file an amended complaint limited to facts about that photograph-posting claim by September 9, 2025. The court stated that if he did not do so, judgment would be entered for the defendants on all claims.