Washington v. Oakland Unified School District

Background

Jason Levette Washington’s First Amended Complaint alleged that Oakland Unified School District employees interfered with his religious expression outside Horace Mann Elementary School. He alleged that employees harassed him, interfered with his Christian-themed chalk art, and that Oakland Unified School District police officers questioned and impeded him while he engaged in religious expression.

Washington also alleged that two Oakland police officers questioned him about people attending a Team Jesus Youth Ministries event. He alleged that Oakland later fined him more than $500 for an alleged violation of a public-nuisance ordinance.

The court had previously dismissed the claims against Oakland Unified School District with permission to amend and had not dismissed the claims against Oakland at that time. Washington did not file a second amended complaint, so Oakland Unified School District renewed its motion to dismiss. Oakland also filed a new motion to dismiss, and Washington requested permission to file a second amended complaint.

Oakland’s motion to dismiss

The court granted Oakland’s motion to dismiss.

For Washington’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court held that the complaint did not allege enough facts to support an Equal Protection claim based on intentional religious discrimination or purposeful unequal treatment compared with similarly situated people. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims without prejudice because Washington indicated that he could plead additional facts showing intentional discrimination. The court did not decide Oakland’s separate arguments concerning the other requirements for municipal liability.

The court dismissed Washington’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 without prejudice because a § 1986 claim requires a valid claim under § 1985, and Washington had not pleaded a claim against Oakland under § 1985.

The court dismissed Washington’s tort claims because the complaint did not allege that he had presented a written claim to Oakland, or facts excusing compliance with California’s claim-presentation requirement. The court permitted Washington to amend those claims to allege facts showing compliance or an excuse.

The court dismissed Washington’s claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 with prejudice because those criminal statutes do not provide a basis for civil liability and amendment would be futile.

Oakland Unified School District’s motion to dismiss

The court granted Oakland Unified School District’s renewed motion to dismiss. The court stated that its earlier dismissal of the First Amended Complaint’s claims against the school district remained applicable because Washington had not filed an amended complaint. If Washington filed a second amended complaint, the court allowed him to amend his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against the Oakland Unified School District employees. The court dismissed his claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 with prejudice for the reasons given in the earlier order.

Permission to amend

The court treated Washington’s petition for formal filing of a second amended complaint as a motion for permission to file one. It granted that motion because the record did not establish that amendment would be futile. The court noted Washington’s self-represented status when addressing the defendants’ argument that he had not followed a local rule requiring the entire proposed amended pleading to be reproduced.

Disposition

The court granted Oakland’s and Oakland Unified School District’s motions to dismiss and granted Washington’s request to file a second amended complaint. Claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 were dismissed with prejudice and were not to be included in an amended complaint. The court set a July 31, 2020, deadline for any amended complaint and warned that failure to correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of Washington’s claims with prejudice. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on June 24, 2020.