Richter v. Ausmus

Background

Julia Richter, a former employee of the Oakland Police Department, alleged two main forms of misconduct. First, she claimed that defensive-tactics training conducted by Damon Gilbert used improper techniques and injured her. Second, she claimed that the defendants conducted a wrongful investigation to prevent her from receiving disability-retirement benefits and that the investigation ultimately led to her termination. The defendants moved to dismiss Richter’s Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Claims One and Two: State-Created Danger and Excessive Force

The court dismissed the state-created-danger claim with prejudice. That legal theory can impose liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a government actor affirmatively exposes someone to a known or obvious danger with deliberate indifference. The court held that Richter did not adequately allege affirmative government conduct creating a particularized danger. The allegations instead described a failure to maintain a safe work environment and did not show that the training itself created the kind of danger required for this claim.

The court also dismissed the excessive-force claim with prejudice. Richter based it on the alleged failure to use approved techniques and properly train officers, but the court found that she did not allege conduct so egregious that it would shock the conscience, as required for the substantive due-process theory she asserted. The court separately found that her failure-to-train theory did not adequately allege a deliberate or conscious municipal choice regarding the allegedly defective training.

Claims Three and Four: Due Process and Fabricated Evidence

The court dismissed the third claim with prejudice. Richter alleged a constitutional right to be punished only by the government whose criminal laws she violated, but the court noted that she had not been criminally charged.

The court dismissed the deliberate-fabrication-of-evidence claim with prejudice. Richter alleged that Lisa Ausmus and another person, Joshi, included false information in investigative materials. The court found that Richter’s allegations were conclusory and did not show that the defendants knew or should have known that she was innocent or that their investigative methods were so coercive and abusive that they should have known they would produce false information. The court also noted that Richter alleged she received a Skelly hearing, which undercut her procedural-due-process argument.

Claim Five: Disability Retirement

The court did not dismiss Richter’s fifth cause of action, concerning a right to disability retirement, because the defendants did not present an argument seeking its dismissal. Richter may proceed on that claim.

Claims Six Through Nine: Retaliation, Equal Protection, and Section 1985

The court dismissed Richter’s First Amendment retaliation claim with prejudice. Although the court recognized that testimony in a judicial proceeding can involve a matter of public concern in some circumstances, it found that Richter’s testimony concerned whether she received and refunded $4,000 for teaching English and matters involving her sister. The court concluded that these subjects were not matters of public concern, so the alleged speech was not protected for purposes of her retaliation claim.

The court dismissed the seventh and eighth causes of action without prejudice and granted Richter leave to amend them. The court found that the equal-protection allegations did not provide facts supporting a coherent theory that defendants discriminated against Richter because of her disability. The court also required facts supporting the necessary theory of class-based animus for the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

The court dismissed the ninth cause of action with prejudice because Richter did not adequately allege that she was deprived of rights because of class-based animus.

Claims Ten Through Thirteen: State-Law Claims

The court dismissed the tenth and twelfth claims with prejudice. Those claims concerned California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights. The court found, among other problems, that Richter had not identified a protectable interest for her procedural-due-process theory and that she could not bring the statutory claims against the individual defendants. The court also explained that the statute’s one-year period may be extended while a related criminal investigation or prosecution is pending, and that the relevant period runs from discovery of the alleged misconduct rather than necessarily from when the conduct occurred.

The court dismissed the eleventh claim with prejudice. Richter relied on California Labor Code section 132a, which the court understood to authorize claims against employers, not the individual defendants named in this case. The court also stated that section 1102.5, which Richter cited in opposition, concerns whistleblowers and did not apply to this case as pleaded.

The court dismissed the thirteenth claim with prejudice. Richter alleged negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the alleged fabricated evidence, denial of a fair trial, and termination. The court found that these allegations were inadequately pleaded and arose from discretionary acts of investigating and terminating her, for which the cited California statute provides protection to public employees.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

Richter also sought to strike defenses raised in the motion to dismiss. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) addresses pleadings, such as an answer, and cannot be used to challenge a motion to dismiss. The court also explained that defendants could raise new arguments in response to the new complaint. The opinion’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion was granted, that Richter may proceed on the fifth cause of action, and that she had 30 days to amend the seventh and eighth causes of action against the defendants.

Judge H. Orrick signed the order as a United States District Judge.