Floyd v. San Jose Police Department

Background

Michael Devin Floyd alleged that San Jose police violated his constitutional rights during an August 18, 2021 traffic stop, search of his car, arrest, seizure of his gun, and use of force. He identified claims under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also challenged California Penal Code sections 25610 and 25850 and sought damages.

At the time of the federal case, California was prosecuting Floyd on charges involving carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle and exhibiting a firearm. The state criminal proceedings were pending. Floyd also alleged that he had suffered physical, mental, and employment-related injuries.

Younger stay

The San Jose Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the federal case under the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally requires a federal court to avoid interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The California defendants joined that request.

The court found that all four requirements for Younger abstention were met: the state criminal proceeding was ongoing; it implicated important state interests; Floyd was not barred from raising his federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and allowing the federal case to continue would interfere with that proceeding.

Floyd argued that he could not litigate his constitutional claims in state court because some of his state-court motions had been denied or handled in ways he considered improper. He also argued that the state prosecution was conducted in bad faith. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that adverse rulings and alleged mishandling of filings did not show that he was barred from raising his claims or that the state proceeding was brought in bad faith.

The court therefore granted the San Jose Defendants’ motion to stay under Younger, with the California defendants joining the motion. Because claims seeking damages generally are stayed rather than dismissed when Younger abstention applies, the court stayed the remaining claims pending resolution of the state criminal case.

Other motions

Floyd moved to strike the defendants’ filings discussing Younger abstention. The court considered his arguments but denied the motion to strike.

Floyd also sought to file under seal materials obtained through a Pitchess motion in the state criminal proceeding. Because a state-court protective order limited use of those materials to the criminal proceedings, the court granted the administrative motion to seal them. The court did not consider the materials in deciding the motions because they were not relevant to the Younger issue or the California defendants’ motion.

Claims against the California defendants

The court dismissed the damages claims against the State of California without leave to amend. It explained that the State was not the proper defendant for Floyd’s stayed challenges to the constitutionality of the California Penal Code provisions. The court stated that the Attorney General could be the appropriate defendant for official-capacity claims seeking injunctive relief, while damages claims against an official in an individual capacity would require allegations of that official’s personal conduct.

The court also dismissed without leave to amend Floyd’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against the Attorney General and State of California because he did not allege facts showing that a particular state official prevented or sought to prevent him from entering or enforcing contracts because of intentional discrimination.

To the extent Floyd asserted claims under 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 242, the court dismissed those claims without leave to amend because those statutes do not provide a private right of action. In other words, the court said individuals cannot sue under those provisions for alleged violations.

Finally, the court dismissed without leave to amend any Monell claim against the Attorney General or State of California. A Monell claim is a claim that a local government’s policy or custom caused a constitutional violation; the court explained that this type of claim applies to local governments and municipalities, not the State or Attorney General in the manner alleged.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to stay under Younger, denied Floyd’s motion to strike, granted the motion to seal the Pitchess materials, and dismissed without leave to amend the specified claims against the Attorney General and State of California. All other claims against the California defendants and San Jose Defendants were stayed pending resolution of the state criminal proceedings. The court directed the parties to file a joint request for a case-management conference after those proceedings are resolved.