Powelson v. Havel

Background

Robbie Powelson sued the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA), its defendants Curtis Havel, James Malcolm, and Beth Pollard, and the Sausalito Police Department (SPD), the City of Sausalito, and several individual defendants. He alleged that defendants arrested and prosecuted him during three incidents in March and May 2021 while he protested the seizure and destruction of houseboats. His amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California’s Bane Act, negligence, negligent training, supervision and retention, and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. RBRA defendants also moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which can protect speech and petitioning activity. The court accepted the amended complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the dismissal motions. It also granted RBRA defendants’ request to take notice of six claim forms and rejection notices as to their existence, but did not consider those documents on the merits beyond the submissions and notices.

Statute-of-Limitations Rulings

The court held that Powelson’s § 1983 First Amendment claims were based on events in March and May 2021 and were filed more than two years later. It therefore dismissed those claims without leave to amend. The court also held that Powelson’s apparent Monell claim against RBRA lacked sufficient allegations identifying a custom, policy, or practice that caused his injuries; the court stated that this claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The court held that Powelson’s California state-law claims against RBRA were barred because he did not file suit within six months after RBRA rejected his administrative claim, as required by the California Government Claims Act. It dismissed those claims without leave to amend. It likewise dismissed Powelson’s Bane Act and negligence-related claims against the SPD defendants as untimely under the applicable two-year limitations period, also without leave to amend.

The court rejected Powelson’s argument that the favorable termination of his criminal case delayed accrual of all his state-law claims. It also rejected his argument that the possibility of federal abstention while the state criminal case was pending automatically paused the limitations period. The court found that equitable tolling, which can pause a filing deadline in limited circumstances, did not apply.

Malicious-Prosecution Claims

For the March 24, 2021 incident, the court held that the allegations showed probable cause for the SPD defendants to arrest or charge Powelson for interfering with Havel’s official duties. The court also held that Powelson did not allege that Havel falsely reported a fact; alleging that Havel acted outside his legal authority was not enough. The court therefore dismissed the related malicious-prosecution claims, with leave to amend.

For the March 25, 2021 incident, the court declined to dismiss Powelson’s malicious-prosecution claim against RBRA and Havel. Powelson alleged that Havel and Malcolm reported the houseboat stolen even though they knew or should have known that Michael Ortega was lawfully possessing it. He also alleged that the police defendants knew Ortega claimed to own the houseboat and had given Powelson permission to be there. The court found these allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to allege a lack of probable cause and malice.

For the same March 25 incident, the court also held that Powelson adequately stated a malicious-prosecution claim against the SPD defendants. The court rejected their argument that Powelson’s completion of a diversion program could not constitute favorable termination. It explained that a criminal prosecution need only end without a conviction to satisfy that element at this stage.

For the May 25, 2021 incident, the court held that the allegations showed probable cause for the SPD defendants to suspect that Powelson interfered with Havel’s official duties. It also held that Powelson did not allege that Havel falsely reported facts. The court therefore dismissed the related malicious-prosecution claims with leave to amend.

Fabrication-of-Evidence Claims

The court dismissed Powelson’s fabrication-of-evidence claims based on March 24 and May 25, 2021, with leave to amend. It concluded that the allegations described disagreements with the officers’ legal and factual assessments, but did not show that the alleged inaccuracies caused Powelson’s loss of liberty because the officers had probable cause to arrest or charge him.

The court declined to dismiss Powelson’s fabrication-of-evidence claim against Officer Edgar Padilla based on March 25, 2021. Powelson alleged that Padilla deliberately stated in a police report that the houseboat had been stolen even though Ortega had told him that Ortega owned it and had allowed Powelson to be on the boat. The court held that these allegations could support a claim that Padilla deliberately fabricated evidence that caused Powelson’s deprivation of liberty. The court dismissed the fabrication claim against Officer Brian Mathers based on that incident.

Qualified Immunity

The SPD defendants argued that John Rohrbacher, Bill Fraas, Stacie Gregory, Brian Mathers, Edgar Padilla, Steven Vereios, and Adam Clerici were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can shield government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right.

The court denied the qualified-immunity portion of the motion to dismiss. It held that the amended complaint did not establish at this stage whether the arrests were justified or supported by probable cause, what the officers knew about ownership of the boats, what they knew about Powelson’s conduct, or what motivated the arrests. The court stated that these fact-specific issues were better suited to a later summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part RBRA defendants’ and SPD defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed without leave to amend the second, sixth, and ninth causes of action under California’s Bane Act; the eighth cause of action under § 1983 for a First Amendment violation; the eleventh cause of action for negligence; and the twelfth cause of action for negligent training, supervision, and retention. The discussion also states that the apparent Monell claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the first cause of action for malicious prosecution based on March 24, 2021; the seventh cause of action for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence based on May 25, 2021; and the tenth cause of action for fabrication of evidence, except for the claim against Padilla based on March 25, 2021. The court declined to dismiss the fourth cause of action for malicious prosecution based on March 25, 2021.

The court declined to address RBRA defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because it had dismissed the relevant state-law claims without leave to amend. Powelson may file a second amended complaint within 21 days, solely to cure the deficiencies identified in the order. The court also continued the case-management conference to December 2, 2025.