Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek

Background

Michael Geary Wilson filed a complaint concerning an April 20, 2018 confrontation at Heather Farms Skate Park in Walnut Creek. Wilson alleged that he and two minors under his supervision encountered people smoking and using profanities. After Wilson confronted the group, he alleged that people insulted him and threw items at him. Walnut Creek police officers Darryl R. Saffold and Gary Silva responded, and supervisor Scott Brian Moorhouse later arrived. Wilson alleged that the officers intimidated and detained him, failed to investigate crimes he reported, and did not respond adequately to later complaints and requests for reassurance.

Wilson’s first amended complaint asserted 47 claims against the City of Walnut Creek and individual defendants. The claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; civil extortion; intentional infliction of emotional distress; claims under California’s Bane Act; false imprisonment; false-light invasion of privacy; defamation; negligence; negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and parental negligence. The amended complaint was 608 pages long and purported to add numerous defendants. The court had previously denied Wilson’s request to serve the newly named defendants.

Federal Claims

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court dismissed Wilson’s second claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court treated the claim as alleging discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause rather than as a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court concluded that Wilson had not alleged specific facts plausibly showing that the officers discriminated against him because of a disability or membership in another protected class, or that similarly situated people were treated differently.

The court also dismissed the official-capacity damages claims against the individual defendants with prejudice because those claims were treated as duplicative of the claims against the City of Walnut Creek. The court dismissed the individual-capacity claims against Saffold, Silva, and Moorhouse because Wilson had not adequately alleged an equal-protection violation. It dismissed the claims involving Chief Thomas Edward Chaplin and Sean Michael Conley because Wilson did not allege their personal participation in a constitutional violation or facts supporting supervisory liability. The § 1983 claim was dismissed without prejudice.

The court dismissed Wilson’s third through sixth claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because the amended complaint did not provide specific facts showing an agreement, the scope of an alleged conspiracy, the participants’ roles, an overt act, or when the conspiracy occurred. Because a § 1986 claim requires a valid § 1985 claim, the court also dismissed the seventh claim under § 1986 without prejudice. The court dismissed the eighth claim alleging municipal liability under Monell because Wilson had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation; that claim was dismissed without prejudice.

State-Law Claims and Pleading Requirements

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wilson’s remaining 40 state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. It also stated that it was unclear whether the state-law claims were sufficiently related to the federal claims to form part of the same case or controversy. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Separately, the court held that the amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it was excessively long and confusing. The court said the pleading burdened the defendants with having to sort through 608 pages to determine what allegations and claims they had to address. Because the court had not previously addressed these deficiencies in this action, it allowed Wilson to amend. Any amended complaint had to contain simple, concise, and direct allegations and a short, plain statement explaining why Wilson was entitled to relief. The court stated that no new claims or defendants could be added without the court’s permission or the agreement of all defendants.

Other Motion and Disposition

Wilson also filed a renewed request for more time to oppose the motion to dismiss. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied that request as moot because Wilson had already filed an opposition, even though he described it as incomplete, and had not shown the required good cause for an extension.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Wilson’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, except for damages claims against individual defendants sued in their official capacities, which were dismissed with prejudice. The court gave Wilson 21 days from the date of the order to file any amended complaint.