Woods v. City of Hayward

Background

Bobbie Allen Woods, representing himself, sued the City of Hayward, the Hayward Police Department, Officer B. Tong, and Sergeant Polar over a police search of Woods’s home. The complaint alleged that police ordered the residents out of the home during an early-morning operation, aimed rifles at Woods as he left in his wheelchair, prevented him from returning inside or obtaining warmer clothing, and provided him with a body bag to use as a blanket. Woods alleged that the events aggravated his disability and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The search was conducted under a warrant. Woods asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable seizure and unreasonable search, a racial-discrimination claim, a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and California-law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally valid claim. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true at this stage and construed Woods’s self-represented filing liberally, but explained that it could not supply essential facts that Woods had not alleged.

Fourth Amendment and Section 1983 Claims

The court dismissed Woods’s unreasonable-seizure claim with leave to amend. Woods alleged that police required him to leave a particular location, but he did not allege facts showing that, after he left the home, police maintained control over him such that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. The court stated that facts in Woods’s opposition brief could not replace allegations in the complaint.

The court dismissed Woods’s unreasonable-search claim with leave to amend. Woods acknowledged that the property search was conducted under a warrant and did not allege that the warrant was invalid or that police exceeded its scope. The court also concluded that the complaint did not provide enough information about the search warrant or the suspected activity to support an inference that the manner of the search was unreasonable. The court noted that Woods might be able to amend by alleging facts showing that the warrant was invalid or that the search exceeded the warrant’s scope.

The court dismissed Woods’s racial-discrimination claim with leave to amend. His allegation that similarly situated white people would not have been treated the same way was too conclusory. The complaint did not allege that non-African Americans were actually treated differently in similar circumstances, other facts supporting racial motivation, or direct racial comments by officers.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Hayward Police Department could not be sued under § 1983 because it was a municipal department. The court found no basis to dismiss claims against the department with prejudice on that ground. Nevertheless, all of Woods’s § 1983 claims, including those against the department, were dismissed with leave to amend for the substantive pleading deficiencies discussed above.

ADA Claim

Woods alleged that he had muscular dystrophy, that the defendants knew about his disability and its sensitivity to cold, and that they denied his request to wait inside his home or obtain a jacket during the search. The court explained that Title II of the ADA can require a public entity to make reasonable changes to its policies or practices when necessary to avoid disability discrimination.

The court held that Woods adequately alleged an ADA accommodation claim against the City of Hayward and the Hayward Police Department at the pleading stage. His allegations supported an inference that being forced to wait outside in the cold caused greater injury or indignity because of his muscular dystrophy. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the ADA claim against the city and police department.

The court dismissed Woods’s ADA claims against Officer Tong and Sergeant Polar with prejudice because, under the authorities cited by the court, the ADA does not provide a cause of action against individual defendants in their individual capacities.

California-Law Claims

The court dismissed Woods’s California claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy with leave to amend. Woods had not alleged compliance with California’s government-claims procedure, which is required before asserting state-law claims against a public entity or its employees. The court did not reach the defendants’ separate argument that Woods had not pleaded enough facts to support those claims. It also stated that the defendants’ municipal-immunity argument was unlikely, by itself, to defeat the claims in light of California statutes concerning public-entity and employee liability.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss Woods’s ADA claims against the City of Hayward and the Hayward Police Department; granted the motion with prejudice as to Woods’s ADA claims against Tong and Polar; and granted the motion with leave to amend as to all other claims. Woods could file an amended complaint by December 6, 2019. The order notes that “Polar” might be an erroneous spelling of “Pola,” but uses “Polar” for consistency with the complaint and briefing.