Turner v. Alberto

Background

Randell Turner, representing himself, filed a complaint in California Superior Court concerning his arrest during a welfare and domestic-violence check at his residence by Union City police officers. He sued the City of Union City, several individual patrol officers and sergeants, a detective, a former police chief, and others. The complaint asserted three federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, along with California state-law claims.

The defendants removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. Turner filed several requests to send the case back to state court; the court treated them as one motion to remand. The defendants opposed remand and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Remand

The court denied remand. It concluded that the complaint expressly asserted claims under § 1983 and therefore presented a federal question supporting removal. The court also rejected Turner’s arguments that the defendants had not been officially added as parties and that they removed the case before he had permission to file the second amended complaint. The record showed that the defendants had been served and that the state court had issued a tentative ruling granting Turner permission to file the second amended complaint; because the ruling was uncontested, it became final under the applicable California rules.

The court also denied the defendants’ ancillary evidentiary objections as moot.

Federal Claims

The court construed the federal claims against the individual defendants as alleging a search and seizure without probable cause and malicious prosecution. It understood the claims against Union City to allege inadequate training and supervision of police officers. Although Turner briefly referred to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the court found that theory lacked factual development and did not consider it further.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims because the complaint did not allege enough facts to make them plausible. Regarding the Fourth Amendment theory, the court relied on probable-cause determinations made during Turner’s state preliminary hearing. That hearing included testimony about reported threats, possible firearms, injuries to Turner’s wife, statements Turner made to officers, and other events leading to his arrest. The state court found sufficient cause to believe that several charged offenses had been committed and that Turner was guilty of them. The federal court concluded that those probable-cause determinations barred Turner from relitigating probable cause in this § 1983 action and found no applicable exception.

The court also dismissed the malicious-prosecution theory. It found that the preliminary-hearing determinations made a basic showing of probable cause and that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the prosecution resulted from knowingly false accusations or similar wrongful conduct.

As to Union City, the court found that Turner had not plausibly alleged a municipal custom, pattern, practice, policy, or inadequate training or supervision that caused his injuries.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to remand and dismissed the federal claims with leave to amend. Turner could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by February 26, 2021, and could not add new parties or claims without prior court approval. The court declined to address the supplemental California state-law claims until a federal claim sufficient to establish jurisdiction was plausibly alleged. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or file a compliant amended complaint would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).