Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department

Background

Abelfatah Ellawendy filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He sued Officer Jason Takagaki of the Presidio of Monterey Police Department, Officer Heather Murphy and Cpl. Prebula of the CSU Monterey Bay Police Department, and District Attorney Robin Duffy, all in their official capacities. He represented himself and had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Ellawendy alleged that Jennifer Carlquest harassed and threatened him after their breakup and that law-enforcement officers failed to help him. He also alleged that Takagaki seized his work and personal computers, threatened or intimidated him, contributed to his firing, and destroyed or concealed evidence. He alleged that CSUMB officers arrested him without a warrant, seized property, used excessively tight handcuffs, and searched his home. He further alleged that Murphy fabricated evidence, that Duffy brought exaggerated criminal charges and refused to return property, and that law-enforcement personnel discriminated against him because he is a Middle Eastern Muslim.

The court had previously screened the original complaint and found that it did not state a claim for relief, but allowed amendment. After reviewing Ellawendy’s first amended complaint, the court found that defects remained but that some claims might be viable.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must dismiss a case filed without the filing fee if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or is brought against an immune defendant. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. When multiple defendants are sued, the complaint must connect each defendant’s conduct to the alleged violation. The court also said it must read pleadings filed by people without lawyers liberally.

Rulings on the claims

Officers Takagaki and Murphy

The court had previously raised whether some claims were barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents a § 1983 claim from proceeding when success would necessarily invalidate an existing criminal conviction or sentence that has not been overturned. Based on the additional allegations and documents, the court concluded that the claims against Takagaki and Murphy might not be barred because they might not necessarily invalidate Ellawendy’s conviction, which was based on a plea. The court therefore determined that those claims may go forward at that time.

Cpl. Prebula

The first amended complaint still did not provide allegations connecting Cpl. Prebula to a constitutional violation. The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because people the supervisor oversees allegedly acted unlawfully; the complaint must allege participation, direction, or knowledge of the violations combined with a failure to prevent them. The court allowed one more opportunity to amend the claims against Prebula. If Ellawendy does not amend those allegations, the court said it will recommend that Prebula be dismissed from the action.

Unnamed CSUMB officers

Ellawendy made allegations against unidentified “CSUMB Officers” but did not name them as defendants. The court ordered him to identify them by their true names or use John Doe or Jane Doe designations in the second amended complaint, including in the caption and defendant-identification section. The court explained that Doe designations may be used at the initial screening stage, but the plaintiff remains responsible for identifying the people so they can be served. If the Doe defendants are not identified when the case is ready for decision, they will be dismissed without prejudice. The court also said it will recommend dismissal if Ellawendy continues asserting claims against unidentified “CSUMB Officers” without making the required amendments.

District Attorney Duffy

The court held that the vast majority of the claims against Duffy were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. That protection generally covers conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. However, the court could not conclude at this stage that immunity covered Ellawendy’s allegation that Duffy refused to release his property. The court allowed that property claim to go forward and said it will recommend dismissal of the other claims against Duffy on immunity grounds.

Race and religious discrimination

The court found that Ellawendy identified himself as a Middle Eastern Muslim but still did not explain which defendant discriminated against him or how the alleged conduct was based on race or religion. The court gave him one more opportunity to amend those claims. If he does not provide the required allegations, the court said it will recommend that the claims be dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted Ellawendy leave to file a second amended complaint by June 12, 2020. The order stated that if the amended complaint does not cure the identified defects, the court will reassign the case to a district judge with recommendations that certain claims be dismissed. If no second amended complaint is filed, the court will recommend dismissal of the entire case. The order itself did not finally dismiss the action.