Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department

Background

David Khan, Nay Zar Tun Kyaw, and AK, who were proceeding without lawyers, sued numerous defendants, including police departments, counties, government offices, and individual officers and employees. They alleged civil-rights violations and tort claims arising from a December 24, 2016 incident. According to the complaint, Khan sought to recover goods he believed had been stolen from his business partner. After police arrived and spoke with Khan and the business partner, Khan was arrested on allegations of child cruelty and threatening the business partner’s life. His vehicle was impounded and searched. Kyaw and AK were placed in the back of a police cruiser but were not alleged to have been arrested.

The opinion states that Khan and Kyaw had previously brought a related federal case concerning the same incident. In that earlier proceeding, Khan’s claims were dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for discovery misconduct, while Kyaw’s remaining claims were later resolved through summary judgment for the defendants. The current action was filed on October 2, 2019. After the pending motions were fully briefed, Kyaw wrote that she and AK wanted to withdraw from the case.

Motion to Disqualify

The plaintiffs asked Judge Rogers to disqualify herself, arguing that she lacked specific knowledge about complex technology involving cell phones, computer operating systems, and security protocols. Applying the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the court asks whether a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Rogers concluded that the plaintiffs’ stated basis did not meet that standard and denied the motion to disqualify.

Motions to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough factual matter to state a legally plausible claim.

The court dismissed Kyaw’s claims without prejudice based on her stated intent to withdraw. It also dismissed AK’s claims without prejudice, explaining that a parent proceeding without a lawyer cannot start or maintain a lawsuit on behalf of a child. The court did not decide whether the earlier related proceeding barred Kyaw’s claims because her withdrawal made that issue unnecessary.

The court dismissed Khan’s claims with prejudice on two grounds. First, it held that his federal claims were filed after the applicable two-year limitations period. It also held that his state-law claims were untimely under California’s government-claim presentation requirements and that the complaint did not allege compliance with those requirements. Second, the court applied claim preclusion, a rule that generally bars a party from relitigating claims arising from the same events after a final judgment involving the same parties or legally related parties. The court found that the current action concerned the same December 24, 2016 events, that Khan’s claims in the earlier proceeding had been dismissed with prejudice and judgment had been entered, and that the party-identity requirement was met. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were therefore granted.

Motion to Compel Discovery

Khan moved to compel discovery concerning allegedly concealed documents. Because the court had dismissed the only claims remaining in the action, it denied the motion to compel as moot.

Motion to Strike

The defendants moved to strike Khan’s amended complaint under Rule 12(f). The court explained that, under Rule 15, Khan could amend as a matter of course within 21 days after service of the complaint or a responsive motion; afterward, he needed the opposing parties’ consent or the court’s permission. The defendants filed their dismissal motions on December 9, 2019, but Khan filed the amended complaint on February 12, 2020. The court also concluded that amendment would be futile in light of its dismissal rulings. It granted the motion to strike, and the amended complaint was stricken.

Motion for Injunction and Final Disposition

Khan sought an injunction based on events in April and May 2020. The court found that those events were outside the scope of the operative complaint, which concerned the December 24, 2016 incident. The court also found that Khan could not show a likelihood of success on the merits or the required irreparable harm. It therefore denied the motion for an injunction.

The court’s final order denied the motion to disqualify, granted the motions to dismiss, denied as moot the motion to compel, granted the motion to strike, and denied the motion for an injunction. The clerk was directed to close the case.