Collins v. County of Alameda

Background

Kevin Collins alleged that he was arrested and imprisoned for the December 7, 2017 shooting of Radajsha Briggs. He was released nearly two years later, and the charges were dismissed. Collins then sued Alameda County, County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Deputy District Attorney Ashley Carvolth, the City of Oakland, the Oakland police chief, and various police officers under federal and state law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute.

The motion addressed only the claims against the County Defendants: Alameda County, O’Malley, and Carvolth. The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, under which a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible.

Suppression of Evidence and Decision to Prosecute

The court dismissed the federal claims based on alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence because the second amended complaint still did not provide specific facts showing that the County Defendants, rather than other defendants, suppressed evidence. The court also noted that it had previously dismissed federal claims based on the decision to prosecute.

However, the court declined to dismiss claims that were based on approval of the second photo lineup merely because they were connected to false arrest or false imprisonment. The court concluded that the allegations could support an argument that approving the lineup was a prosecutorial or investigative decision, and it could not resolve that issue as a matter of law at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Claims Against O’Malley

The court held that Collins had not plausibly alleged that O’Malley personally participated in approving the second photo lineup. The allegations largely asked the court to infer her involvement from an officer’s statement that he presented the lineup to the District Attorney’s Office and was told it was acceptable. The court found those inferences unreasonable because they amounted to speculation.

The court therefore dismissed all federal claims against O’Malley based on approval of the second photo lineup without prejudice. The court stated that Collins could seek permission to amend if discovery produced evidence that O’Malley was personally involved.

Claims Against Carvolth

The court reached a different conclusion concerning Carvolth. Although the officer did not identify her by name, the court found it reasonable at this stage to infer that she was involved because she was allegedly a line prosecutor and participated in a meeting reviewing the evidence two days after the second lineup.

The court also found it reasonable to infer that Carvolth knew relevant circumstances surrounding the lineup, including that an earlier lineup had not identified Collins, that the second lineup used a photograph obtained through a sham traffic stop, and that Collins appeared in the same position in both lineups. If Carvolth knew those circumstances and nevertheless approved the lineup, the court stated that Collins had a viable § 1983 claim. The court did not decide that Carvolth would ultimately be liable, noting that she could later argue that she did not participate, or that absolute or qualified immunity applied.

Claims Against Alameda County

The court dismissed the federal claims against Alameda County without prejudice. It found insufficient allegations that O’Malley, as the County’s final policymaker, approved the lineup; ratified Carvolth’s decision; or failed to train personnel about lineup procedures in a way showing deliberate indifference. This was the court’s ruling on the municipal-liability claim, often called a Monell claim.

Punitive Damages and Injunctive Relief

The court dismissed the punitive-damages claim against O’Malley because no federal claim remained against her. It did not dismiss the punitive-damages claim against Carvolth, finding it plausible if she intentionally endorsed a suggestive lineup or deliberately fabricated evidence.

The court dismissed Collins’s claim for injunctive relief because he stated that he had included it in the second amended complaint by mistake.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The federal claims against O’Malley and Alameda County were dismissed without prejudice. The federal claims against Carvolth could proceed, but only with approval of the second photo lineup as their factual basis. The order disposed of Docket No. 34.