Lozada v. Santa Rosa Police Department

Background

Victor Melesio Lozada, described as a detainee, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. Lozada alleged that he was improperly arrested on November 12, 2019, and that the arresting officer falsified information so he would be charged with a felony. He said the initial allegations involved theft but that he was charged with robbery. He was in custody when the court issued the order and sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review complaints by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or employees. The court explained that an unlawful-arrest claim under § 1983 generally requires an allegation that the arrest lacked probable cause or another legal justification. It also discussed claims based on unlawful detention and the rule limiting damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction unless that conviction has been invalidated.

The court stated that, because Lozada was in custody and the criminal case’s status was unclear, he needed to provide more information about whether the prosecution was ongoing and whether his custody resulted from the arrest. The court explained that if the prosecution was ongoing, the civil case would have to be stayed until the criminal case ended. It also stated that damages could not be recovered unless the charges were dropped or a conviction was expunged.

Lozada named the Santa Rosa Police Department as a defendant. The court assumed he intended to name Sonoma County instead. To plead a claim against a local government under the rule commonly called Monell, Lozada needed to identify the specific policy, custom, or practice that allegedly caused the constitutional violation and provide facts plausibly supporting the claim. Merely alleging that such a policy, custom, or practice existed was insufficient.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Lozada was required to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and civil case number from the order, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include every claim he wished to pursue, and not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court also instructed him to add Sonoma County if he sought to present a municipal-liability claim. The court warned that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the case.