Rosas v. City of Santa Rosa

Background

David C. Rosas filed this action without a lawyer. He alleged that a January 2016 fire at his Santa Rosa duplex led to a mental-health detention, criminal property charges, allegedly false testimony by Santa Rosa Police Department Officer Gavin Holzapfel, and inadequate mental-health support during the criminal proceedings. Rosas alleged that the criminal case was dismissed in February 2020 after he completed a diversion and treatment program. He also alleged property loss, lost wages and legal or counseling expenses, unpaid insurance benefits, and ammunition that was not returned with firearms confiscated by the police.

Rosas’s original complaint referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, malicious prosecution, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, but did not clearly identify his causes of action. The City of Santa Rosa, Detective Gavin Holzapfel, and property evidence technician Lisa Hansen filed one set of motions to dismiss. Sonoma County and district attorneys Jill Ravitch, Jessica Washington, and Spencer Brady filed another set. Rosas later filed two amended complaints without defendants’ consent or the court’s permission.

Amended Complaints

The court ruled that the original complaint remained the operative complaint because Rosas filed the amended complaints outside the applicable 21-day period and without consent or permission. The court struck the amended complaints. Because those pleadings were no longer operative, it denied as moot the motions to dismiss them.

Claims Dismissed Without Leave to Amend

The court dismissed with prejudice, and in its conclusion described as without leave to amend, Rosas’s claims against Ravitch, Washington, Brady, Holzapfel, and Hansen in their official capacities. The court applied the rule that claims against state officials in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The court also dismissed with prejudice, and described as without leave to amend in the conclusion, Rosas’s individual-capacity claims against Ravitch, Washington, and Brady to the extent they were based on conduct connected to their roles as prosecutors in judicial proceedings. The court held that prosecutors have absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case.

The court dismissed with prejudice Rosas’s state-law malicious-prosecution claim because the criminal case ended after Rosas completed a diversion and treatment program. Relying on the noticed criminal records and cited authorities, the court held that this type of dismissal did not satisfy the required “favorable termination” element of a malicious-prosecution claim.

The court dismissed with prejudice Rosas’s claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because Title III applies only to private entities, while the defendants involved in that claim were public entities or officials.

Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed with leave to amend the claims it understood Rosas to be attempting to bring under the Second Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, the Fourteenth Amendment for denial of a mental-health advocate, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and California’s Unruh Act.

For the Second Amendment claim, the court said Rosas needed to identify what Hansen or another defendant did that infringed his right to bear arms, rather than relying on the allegation that his ammunition was not returned.

For the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim, the court said Rosas needed to identify which defendants caused the prosecution, what each defendant did or failed to do, how the prosecution lacked probable cause and malice, and how it was intended to deny a constitutional right.

For the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court said Rosas needed to explain how the denial of a mental-health advocate or ammunition deprived him of life, liberty, or property without due process or denied him equal protection.

For the civil RICO claim, the court said Rosas needed to plead facts addressing the required elements, including conduct by an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that directly and proximately caused concrete financial injury to his business or property. The court found that the allegation of collusion between the district attorney and police department did not state a RICO claim.

For the Title II disability claim, the court said Rosas needed to allege that he was a qualified individual with a disability, that each defendant denied him a mental-health advocate, and that the denial occurred because of his disability.

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim with leave to amend because the complaint did not say whether Rosas had satisfied California’s requirement to present a timely claim to the public entity before seeking damages under state law. The court did not screen the substance of that claim at that time.

Municipal and Individual Liability

The court instructed Rosas that he must connect each defendant to a specific claim and explain what that defendant did or failed to do. For a municipal claim under § 1983, the court explained that he also needed facts showing a constitutional violation, a municipal policy, deliberate indifference to the constitutional right, and that the policy was the moving force behind the violation. Merely naming a municipality or alleging that a policy or practice existed was insufficient.

Disposition

The court granted the City Defendants’ and County Defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint, dismissed the specified claims without leave to amend or with prejudice as stated above, dismissed the remaining identified claims with leave to amend, struck the two amended complaints, and denied as moot the motions to dismiss those amended complaints. Rosas was permitted to file another amended complaint within thirty days, subject to the court’s instructions about identifying defendants and stating each claim with sufficient specificity. The opinion also notes that Governor Gavin Newsom had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve.