Barrera v. City of Oakland Police Department

Background

Arturo Osiel Valencia Barrera applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the ordinary filing fee. He represented himself. The court granted that application.

Barrera sued the City of Oakland Police Department and Sergeant Eric Kim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local actors for violating federal rights. He alleged that the Police Department and Kim refused to investigate his reports of rape and poisoned food, which he said were part of a conspiracy intended to discourage him from reporting crimes. He asserted that this conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Screening of the Complaint

Because the court granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, it was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court said it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally, and generally should allow amendment unless the defects cannot be fixed.

Equal-Protection Claim Against Kim

The court explained that an equal-protection claim under § 1983 generally requires facts showing that the defendants intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff because of membership in a protected class. Barrera alleged that the defendants conspired and worked against him to deny him equal protection, but the court found that assertion conclusory. He did not identify specific circumstances in which similarly situated people were treated more favorably, identify a protected class, or provide facts making discrimination plausible.

The court therefore ordered Barrera to show cause why his equal-protection claim should not be dismissed with prejudice. The order did not itself dismiss that claim.

Claim Against the Oakland Police Department

The court separately explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs the person who allegedly caused a constitutional injury. To pursue the claim against the Oakland Police Department, Barrera would need both an underlying constitutional violation and facts showing that the injury resulted from a formal policy, a longstanding practice or custom, an action by an official with final policymaking authority, or ratification by such an official.

Disposition and Next Step

The court ordered Barrera to show cause by June 17, 2022, by filing either an amended complaint addressing the identified defects or a response arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient. The order stated that failure to respond, or failure to correct the defects, would lead to reassignment to a United States district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. It also stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all facts, claims, and defendants Barrera wished to pursue. The order granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee and issued an order to show cause; it did not enter a dismissal.