King v. Alameda County Department of Child Support Services

Background

Troy King filed a complaint without a lawyer against the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). He alleged that he worked as an independent contractor for Postmates and gave DCSS his work information. According to the complaint, Postmates withheld child-support payments from him at the beginning of each month without his consent. King also received several notices of intent to suspend his driver’s license because of nonpayment of child support. The complaint did not say whether the license was actually suspended.

King alleged that a DCSS employee, identified as Wong, failed to follow agency procedures for verifying payments, sending delinquency notices, and reviewing his account. He also alleged that Wong’s supervisor condoned or ratified her conduct.

The complaint asserted four causes of action against DCSS and unidentified defendants: deprivation of rights and equal protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, due-process violations under § 1983, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Federal Claims

DCSS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court explained that a complaint must allege enough facts to make relief legally plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

The court dismissed King’s § 1983 claims. Under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a public entity cannot be held responsible under § 1983 merely because it employs an individual who allegedly violated someone’s rights. The plaintiff must allege an unconstitutional official policy or custom, a deliberately indifferent failure to act such as inadequate training, or involvement or ratification by a final policymaker.

The court found that King’s allegations did not identify such a policy or custom. The complaint described Wong’s alleged negligence and failure to follow existing policies, but mere negligence does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The allegation that an unnamed supervisor ratified Wong’s conduct lacked factual support, and the complaint did not allege that the supervisor was a final policymaker.

The court also found separate problems with the equal-protection claim. King did not allege in the complaint that he belonged to a protected class or that DCSS acted with discriminatory intent. Although his opposition stated that he is African-American, neither the complaint nor the opposition alleged facts showing that DCSS acted against him because of his race.

The due-process claim was also unclear and insufficiently pleaded. The complaint did not identify a constitutionally protected property interest. It was unclear whether King challenged the deductions from his Postmates pay, the threatened license suspension, or both. The complaint also did not clarify whether he was asserting substantive due process, which requires allegations of government conduct that is exceptionally shocking, or procedural due process, which requires facts showing deprivation of a property interest without adequate safeguards.

State Claims and Disposition

The court did not address DCSS’s arguments for dismissing the negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It explained that those state-law claims could provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction, but that the court could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims. The court advised King to consider DCSS’s arguments if he chose to pursue the state claims.

The court granted DCSS’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted King 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was due no later than September 3, 2021. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Judge Illston also vacated the scheduled hearing and rescheduled the initial case-management conference for October 29, 2021.