Washington v. Oakland Unified School District

Background

Jason Levette Washington alleged that Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), OUSD employees, the City of Oakland, and Oakland police officers violated his constitutional rights and state laws by interfering with his religious expression outside an OUSD school. He alleged that he went to a public easement outside Horace Mann Elementary to create Christian-themed chalk art. He claimed that teachers made disparaging comments, one person harassed him and walked into him, and OUSD employees later berated him and erased his chalk art.

Washington also alleged that OUSD police officers repeatedly harassed, questioned, impeded, and interfered with him while he was expressing his religious beliefs. He described one incident in which officers threatened to cite him if he did not leave, accused him of spitting on their shoes, questioned his Christianity, and discouraged his religious expression. He further alleged that Oakland police officers questioned him about people attending a Team Jesus Youth Ministries event and that Oakland later fined him more than $500 for an alleged public-nuisance violation.

OUSD’s Motion

OUSD argued that Washington had served it 129 days after filing the complaint. The court declined to dismiss on that ground. It explained that the service rule permits dismissal without prejudice or an extension of time, and because OUSD had already been served, the court extended the service period instead.

The court dismissed Washington’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 with prejudice because that statute is a criminal provision and does not create civil liability.

The court dismissed Washington’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) without prejudice. That statute requires, among other things, an alleged conspiracy to deprive a person or class of equal legal protection or privileges. The court found that Washington had not adequately alleged an agreement or meeting of the minds among the defendants. Because he indicated that he could plead additional facts, the court allowed amendment. The court did not reach OUSD’s alternative arguments that Washington had failed to plead an underlying constitutional violation or that individual defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

The court also dismissed the claims against OUSD itself with prejudice based on sovereign immunity. It relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that California school districts are arms of the state and retain immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suits seeking monetary damages or injunctive relief.

Oakland’s Motion

Oakland argued that it was not the employer of the individual defendants associated with OUSD and that Washington had alleged no other connection between Oakland and the events. The court disagreed that dismissal was appropriate at this stage because the amended complaint included allegations involving Oakland police officers and Oakland itself. The court therefore denied Oakland’s motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court granted OUSD’s motion to dismiss and denied Oakland’s motion to dismiss. Washington could file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. The amended complaint could not include claims against OUSD or claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 because the court determined that amendment of those claims would be futile. Washington had 45 days to file the second amended complaint; otherwise, OUSD and Oakland could file new motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.