Washington v. Moore

Background

Pro se plaintiff Jason Levette Washington alleged that an October 15, 2018 arrest for trespassing at Fremont High School in Oakland, and related events, violated his constitutional rights. The defendants were the school’s principal, four Oakland Unified School District police officers, and Donnie Robinson, the owner of the company that towed Washington’s car after his arrest.

The Oakland Unified School District defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. While the case was stayed, Washington filed an amended complaint. The defendants moved to strike it, and Washington filed a document called a “Peremptory Challenge of Judicial Officer,” which the court treated as a request for judicial recusal.

Motion to Dismiss

The court dismissed Counts 1–8 and 64–66, which were based on state criminal statutes, with prejudice. The court explained that California law does not authorize private prosecutions and that the cited statutes concerning false police reports and battery did not create an exception.

The court dismissed Claims 80 and 81 against Robinson without prejudice. Claim 80 concerned receipt of stolen goods under California Penal Code section 496, and Claim 81 alleged deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court noted that the case had been stayed before Robinson’s responsive pleading was due.

The remaining claims against the Oakland Unified School District defendants were also dismissed without prejudice. Washington’s claims under § 1983 required an alleged violation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. His claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 likewise required a valid § 1983 claim. The court concluded that Washington had not stated a claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Washington alleged that he played music at the high school and rewarded students with snacks for reading and retaining Bible verses. A police report attached to the complaint said that the principal described Washington as obstructing school entrances and reported that Muslim students felt offended. The court said that school speech, including religious speech, is evaluated under a school-specific constitutional framework that considers student safety and the school’s operations. Washington did not challenge California’s trespassing laws as invalid or non-neutral. Although he argued that the defendants were motivated by religious hostility because food vendors were allowed on campus, he did not dispute that he interfered with school operations or claim that the food vendors were similarly disruptive.

Recusal Request and Disposition

The court treated Washington’s filing as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the federal judicial-recusal statute. Washington referred generally to alleged judicial-ethics violations during a February 7 hearing and to a complaint filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court denied the recusal request, concluding that the allegations would not lead a reasonable person to believe that the court had prejudged the case or lacked impartiality. The opinion also states that the Ninth Circuit denied Washington’s petition.

The court dismissed Counts 1–8 and 64–66 with prejudice and dismissed the remaining counts without prejudice. It struck the first amended complaint and terminated the motion to strike. Washington was permitted to file an amended complaint by April 6, 2020. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).