Elkins v. Novato Police Department

Background

Lamont Elkins filed six claims arising from his August 16, 2020 arrest: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful search and seizure based on municipal policy or practice; (2) malicious prosecution; (3) false arrest; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act.

According to the complaint, a Novato police officer contacted Elkins because he allegedly matched a description of an armed-robbery suspect as a “black male on a bicycle.” Other officers arrived, and the robbery victim was brought to the scene for identification. The complaint alleged that an incident report falsely stated that the victim was “100 percent” sure Elkins was the attacker, while the victim allegedly expressed uncertainty and later withdrew the identification. Elkins alleged that he was arrested, jailed for more than two weeks, and denied access to prescribed medication and medical care for a heart condition. He also alleged that police policies and practices permitted coercive identifications, unreasonable arrests, false reports, inadequate investigation, and inadequate training and supervision.

The complaint alleged that Marin County Deputy District Attorney Leon Kousharian filed criminal charges against Elkins on August 18, 2020. It also stated that Elkins’s petition for a finding of factual innocence was granted by the state superior court on November 19, 2020. At the same time, the complaint gave conflicting accounts, stating both that the charges had been dismissed and that the prosecution was still ongoing.

Motions and legal standard

The Marin defendants—the Marin County District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney Lori Frugoli, and Deputy District Attorney Leon Kousharian—moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that they had absolute immunity, meaning immunity from the claims asserted against them. Elkins conceded that the Marin defendants were entitled to immunity.

The Novato defendants—the City of Novato, Angel Macias, Reza Pourfarhani, and Derrick Young—also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not adequately state claims against them. The court explained that a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible. The court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true at this stage but does not have to accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court granted the Marin defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims against them with prejudice.

As to the Novato defendants, the court granted the motion to dismiss the malicious-prosecution claim without prejudice. The court said it was unclear from the record whether Elkins’s prosecution had ended in his favor, which is an element of a malicious-prosecution claim under California law. The dismissal therefore did not bar the claim from being filed if the prosecution later ended in Elkins’s favor.

The court also granted the Novato defendants’ motion as to the remaining claims. The opinion states that the complaint confusingly combined allegations against the Novato and Marin defendants and did not clearly identify which causes of action were asserted against which defendants, along with the facts supporting those claims. The court granted the Novato defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed Elkins to file an amended complaint by January 14, 2021, as stated in the order.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston ordered that the Marin defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted as to all claims with prejudice. The Novato defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and Elkins was permitted to amend his complaint.