Olajide v. Newsome
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-08048
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Olajide v. Newsome, Judge Alsup granted dismissal because the pro se complaint did not connect defendants to alleged police encounters and the claims were time-barred.
The ruling affected Oladapo Olajide, whose First Amended Complaint was dismissed, and Gavin Newsome and Xavier Becerra, who obtained dismissal of the claims against them in their official capacities.
What happened
In Olajide v. Newsome, Oladapo Olajide sued Gavin Newsome and Xavier Becerra in their official capacities, asserting constitutional claims based on police encounters and his continuing fear of police. He also invoked the Magna Carta.
The court said the complaint did not identify any specific action by Newsome or Becerra connected to the alleged encounters. It also said the Magna Carta could not support a claim for relief and that the Section 1983 claims were barred by the two-year time limit because the last alleged incident occurred in 2017.
Judge William Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Olajide v. Newsome · No. 3:19-cv-08048
- William Alsup
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
Oladapo Olajide, proceeding without a lawyer, brought constitutional claims against Gavin Newsome, identified as California’s Governor, and Xavier Becerra, identified as California’s Attorney General. The defendants were sued in their official capacities.
The First Amended Complaint referred to two police encounters in which officers drew their weapons on Olajide. The opinion’s wording identifies the years as “2004 for 2017,” so the description of the two dates is unclear. The complaint alleged that fear of police had affected Olajide’s daily life and that he felt threatened by the California Highway Patrol while driving. It did not allege a factual connection between those events and actions by Newsome or Becerra.
Claims and Motion
Olajide sought relief under the Magna Carta and asserted due-process and equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is a federal law that permits a person to sue for certain constitutional violations committed by people acting under state authority.
The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The parties agreed to submit the motion based on their written filings, so the scheduled hearing was vacated.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the Magna Carta could not provide a legal basis for relief. It explained that claims must be based on United States law or, in a diversity case, state law, and that the Magna Carta is not such a source of law for this claim.
The court also held that the § 1983 claims were inadequately pleaded. A complaint must allege specific facts connecting each named defendant to the claimed constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint alleged no specific conduct by Newsome or Becerra beyond their general involvement in what Olajide called the “regime.” The court further noted that the defendants had not yet taken office when the alleged police encounters occurred.
The court separately ruled that amendment would be futile because it treated the § 1983 claims as personal-injury claims subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Because the last alleged police incident occurred in 2017, the court said the claims were barred.
Ruling
Judge William Alsup granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because amendment would be futile, the court denied leave to amend and directed that judgment be entered. The order stated that Olajide could appeal by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days after judgment was entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.