Jackson v. Menlo Park Police Department

Background

Lawrence Jackson proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court therefore screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of an indigent litigant’s complaint and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Jackson asserted a civil-rights claim for “harassment and racial profiling and sexual assault” against the Menlo Park Police Department. He alleged that the department was monitoring him without a warrant, including monitoring his penis and body parts with a satellite camera and through social media. He also alleged that an FBI agent named “Ed Soar’s” was monitoring and harassing him without a warrant, but he did not name that person as a defendant. Jackson separately filed a motion for a temporary restraining order because he said the police department continued to harass him.

Court’s analysis

The court construed the monitoring allegations as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Section 1983 permits claims against a person acting under state law who violates federal rights. The court explained that individual officers and local governmental units can qualify as defendants, but municipal departments and subunits, including police departments, generally do not. It therefore concluded that Jackson failed to state a claim against the Menlo Park Police Department as named.

The court also held that Jackson had not alleged enough specific facts about how the monitoring occurred. Because the complaint did not describe the circumstances of the alleged monitoring and did not explain how social media related to the claim, the allegations did not support a plausible inference that the Fourth Amendment had been violated. The court further stated that some allegations appeared clearly baseless or fanciful. It did not separately adjudicate a racial-profiling claim; it noted that Jackson’s reference to racial profiling was conclusory.

The court explained that a claim against the FBI agent would arise under a limited doctrine allowing damages claims against federal officers for certain constitutional violations. It concluded that Jackson’s allegations about the agent likewise did not support a plausible inference of a Fourth Amendment or other federal constitutional or statutory violation, so that claim would fail if Jackson amended the complaint to add the agent.

Disposition

The court concluded that Jackson had failed to state any viable claim, but it did not enter a dismissal in this order. Instead, it ordered Jackson to show cause by May 27, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed. He could respond by explaining why the claims were sufficiently pleaded or could file an amended complaint by the same date. The court required any amended complaint to include all facts, claims, and defendants and not merely refer back to the original complaint. The opinion did not state a disposition of the temporary restraining-order motion.

The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.