Davis v. Clearlake Police Department

Background

David M. Davis, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Clearlake Police Department; Lieutenant Herman, Sergeant Celli, and Officer Hobbs; Sutter County District Attorney Clint Curry; and Sutter County Child Protective Services.

Davis alleged that, after he filed an earlier federal lawsuit against the Clearlake Police Department, the Clearlake defendants retaliated by identifying him in a database as “Anti-Law Enforcement.” He characterized that alleged designation and related targeting as cruel and unusual punishment, a deprivation of life, liberty, and property, unequal treatment, racial discrimination, and retaliation for filing his earlier lawsuit. The court noted that Davis did not allege any specific incident in which the Clearlake defendants endangered or unlawfully targeted him, and that his concern about future targeting after his release was speculative.

Davis also alleged that, after a 2012 arrest involving a family domestic matter in Sutter County, District Attorney Curry directed or used Child Protective Services to surveil his home. He further alleged that a police officer approached him with a drawn weapon, handcuffed him, and said that he would have shot Davis if fewer people had been present.

Screening and improper joinder

Because Davis sought relief from governmental entities and employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court found that the claims against the Sutter County defendants and the Clearlake defendants arose from separate incidents, involved different legal theories, and did not share a sufficient common question of law or fact. The court therefore found the defendants improperly joined. It dismissed the claims against District Attorney Curry and Sutter County Child Protective Services without prejudice to filing them in a separate complaint in the Eastern District of California, which the court identified as the proper venue for those claims.

Claims against the Clearlake defendants

The court dismissed the claims against the Clearlake defendants with leave to amend. It observed that Davis’s due-process and equal-protection claims concerning events in 2006 and early 2007 had been rejected or dismissed in earlier lawsuits. The court could not determine whether the present complaint challenged only those earlier events or alleged more recent or ongoing designations and targeting. It stated that speculative future targeting was not actionable, but allowed Davis to amend if he was alleging more recent or ongoing conduct.

The court also found the pleaded claims deficient for the following reasons:

- Due process: Davis identified no state law creating a protected liberty interest and cited no authority showing that the alleged designation or targeting itself violated the Due Process Clause. - First Amendment retaliation: Davis alleged that the conduct occurred after he filed his earlier lawsuit, but the court found that timing alone did not plausibly show that the defendants acted because of his protected activity. - Eighth Amendment: Davis did not allege that the Clearlake defendants punished him or that their conduct involved his prison conditions or sentence. - Equal protection: Davis did not allege that similarly situated people were treated differently, including because of race.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Curry and Sutter County Child Protective Services without prejudice to filing them in a new complaint in the Eastern District of California. It dismissed the claims against the Clearlake defendants with leave to amend. Davis was ordered to file an amended complaint by August 15, 2022, using the required caption and wording, and to include all claims he wished to pursue because an amended complaint would replace the original complaint. The court warned that failure to amend on time and in compliance with the order would result in dismissal of the action.