Mullin v. City of Mountain View
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02191
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mullin v. City of Mountain View, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration and interlocutory-appeal certification after dismissing Mullin’s civil-rights claims under Heck.
Plaintiff Tyghe James Mullin and the City of Mountain View, California, and the individual police officers sued in their official capacities. The court’s denial left the earlier dismissal of Mullin’s second amended complaint in place.
What happened
In Tyghe James Mullin v. City of Mountain View, California, et al., Tyghe James Mullin, representing himself, sued the City and police officers over an alleged illegal search and seizure of his rental storage unit. He brought civil-rights claims involving unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and city responsibility for constitutional violations.
The court had dismissed Mullin’s second amended complaint because success on his claims would necessarily call into question his state convictions for burglary and identity theft. Mullin asked the court to reconsider, citing new evidence, disagreement with the earlier ruling, and a pending petition challenging his convictions. He also asked the court to certify the ruling for an immediate appeal.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied both motions. She ruled that the evidence did not address whether the claims were barred by the rule applied in the earlier dismissal, disagreement with the ruling was not a basis for reconsideration, and the appeal request involved a straightforward application of controlling Supreme Court precedent rather than a novel legal issue.
The detailed version
- Mullin v. City of Mountain View · No. 5:25-cv-02191
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Tyghe James Mullin brought the case without a lawyer under Section 1983, a federal law allowing civil-rights claims against government actors. The defendants were the City of Mountain View and individual police officers sued in their official capacities. Mullin’s second amended complaint asserted claims for unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability for the alleged constitutional violations.
The claims arose from what Mullin described as the officers’ illegal entry, search, and seizure of his rental storage unit. The opinion states that the events led to state convictions for burglary and identity theft, after a plea agreement, and that Mullin was sentenced to two years in state prison.
On September 24, 2025, the court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Heck doctrine, which generally bars a civil-rights claim when winning the claim would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction is invalid. The court reasoned that a ruling finding that the evidence used to convict Mullin was obtained illegally, or that the proceedings leading to his conviction were illegal, would necessarily imply that the convictions were invalid.
Motions and analysis
Mullin moved for reconsideration and asked the court to certify the dismissal for an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case is otherwise finished. He argued that new evidence showed a pattern of police misconduct toward him. The court reviewed the referenced filings and determined that the evidence did not bear on the legal issue resolved in the dismissal: whether the claims were barred by the Heck doctrine.
Mullin also renewed his argument that his claims did not necessarily imply that his convictions were invalid. The court treated that argument as disagreement with its earlier order, not as a basis for reconsideration. The court further noted that it had repeatedly told Mullin that he would need to file a new action to challenge his convictions through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a court petition challenging unlawful custody or a conviction.
For an interlocutory appeal, the court explained that the order must involve a controlling legal question, a substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that would materially advance the end of the litigation. The court concluded that certification was improper because the case involved a straightforward application of controlling Supreme Court precedent and raised no novel legal issue.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Mullin’s motion for reconsideration and denied his motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal. The opinion does not state that either motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.