Floyd v. Singh

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, appearing without a lawyer, sued Hayward Police Department officers Jagdeep Singh and Cameron Sawyer in their individual and official capacities. Floyd alleged that, after a gym manager ordered him to leave, the officers approached him, grabbed his hands to handcuff him, removed his hands from a locker, pinned him to the ground, and threatened to use a taser. He also alleged that one officer handled or searched his cell phone and that a gym manager collected his possessions after he was taken away.

The complaint asserted seven claims: Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged search of Floyd’s phone, seizure of his person, and seizure of his personal items; Fourteenth Amendment claims under § 1983 alleging excessive force; and California claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and also moved to stay the case while Floyd’s state criminal charges were pending.

Rulings

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to claims one, two, and four with leave to amend. It dismissed claims three, five, six, and seven without leave to amend. The court also concluded that the request for a stay should be denied as moot because Floyd’s criminal charges had been dismissed.

Official-Capacity Claims

A claim against a local officer in an official capacity is treated as a claim against the local government that employs the officer. The court therefore treated Floyd’s official-capacity claims as claims involving the City of Hayward, although the City was not named as a defendant. The court held that Floyd did not allege a city policy, ordinance, regulation, or official decision that caused his injuries. It dismissed the official-capacity claims with leave to amend. The court also directed that any amended complaint identify which claims are brought against which defendants and whether each claim is brought in an individual or official capacity.

Fourth Amendment Claims

Claims one and two alleged § 1983 violations based on the search of Floyd’s cell phone and the seizure of his person. A § 1983 claim requires allegations showing, among other things, that each defendant personally participated in conduct under color of state law that caused a violation of federal rights. The court held that Floyd’s complaint referred generally to “officers” and did not identify which officer searched the phone, grabbed him, or pinned him. Facts included only in Floyd’s opposition to the dismissal motion could not cure the complaint. The court dismissed claims one and two with leave to amend so Floyd could link specific defendants to specific conduct.

Claim four alleged that Floyd’s personal items were unlawfully seized. The complaint said that a gym manager collected the items, but the manager and the gym were not defendants, and the complaint did not allege that the officers collected the items. To the extent Floyd claimed that the officers allowed a non-officer to collect his belongings, the complaint did not identify which officer took that action or explain how the officer caused the alleged violation. The court dismissed claim four with leave to amend to clarify the alleged constitutional violation and identify the responsible defendant.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

Claims three and five alleged excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment. Claim three concerned the use or threatened use of a taser, and claim five concerned the officers’ removal of Floyd from the locker room. The court held that the complaint did not link specific conduct to specific defendants. It also held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor, excessive-force claims arising during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free person are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not as substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court dismissed claims three and five without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

California Emotional-Distress Claims

Claims six and seven alleged negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law. The court held that Floyd did not allege that he had complied with California’s Government Claims Act or that compliance was excused. The court also held that Floyd conceded these claims by failing to oppose the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. It dismissed both claims with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as described above. Floyd may amend claims one, two, and four, and any amended complaint must be filed by September 5, 2025. Floyd was denied leave to amend claims three, five, six, and seven.