Allums v. Department of Justice

Background

Dennis Bruce Allums proceeded without a lawyer and filed a first amended civil-rights complaint against the Department of Justice, the University of California at Berkeley, Bay Area Rapid Transit, the City of Berkeley, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and listed claims involving criminal conspiracy, criminal defamation, whistleblower laws, sexual harassment, harassment, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right to form a militia.

The court described the complaint’s central allegations as unclear. It appeared to allege that events beginning in 2004 and continuing through July 2019 led to certain males being given a “right to harm women and children.” The allegations concerning Berkeley included accusations of defamation, a purported city policy involving “satanic ritual sacrifice,” protection or encouragement of certain people by local police, and denial of protection under the law to minorities, women of color, and homeless people.

Berkeley’s Motion

Berkeley moved to dismiss on three grounds: the statute of limitations, failure to plead a sufficient § 1983 claim, and failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act.

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint that does not state a legally valid claim. The court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true for this type of motion, but conclusory legal statements and unsupported inferences are not enough. Because Allums was proceeding without a lawyer, the court also said it would read his filings liberally.

Court’s Analysis

First, the court stated that § 1983 claims in California generally have a two-year limitations period. The complaint did not give dates for Berkeley’s alleged actions, even though other allegations reached back to 2004. The court therefore found that the complaint did not, by itself, allege a timely claim.

Second, the court explained that a city can be liable under § 1983 when an unconstitutional action results from a government policy or custom. A city cannot be held liable merely because it employs someone who committed a wrong. The court identified three possible ways to plead municipal liability: an official policy or established custom causing a constitutional injury; omissions or failures showing deliberate indifference to constitutional rights; or approval of unconstitutional conduct by an official with final policymaking authority. The court found that Allums alleged only a general reference to a “public policy,” which was insufficient.

Third, the California Tort Claims Act requires presentation and disposition or rejection of a written claim before filing certain state-law damages claims. The court could not tell whether Allums intended to bring a state-law claim, but stated that any such claim would require allegations showing compliance with the Act’s notice provisions.

Disposition

The court granted Berkeley’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It also granted Allums leave to amend, meaning he was permitted to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. The deadline was March 10, 2020, and defendants were required to respond within 21 days after any second amended complaint was filed. The order does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice. It terminated Docket Number 14.