Lowe v. City of Oakland Police Department

Background

Darryl Edward Lowe filed a handwritten complaint against the City of Oakland Police Department and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

Lowe alleged that a single, unidentified officer with the Oakland Police Department improperly accessed confidential prison or parole files concerning him. He said the files contained photographs and information dating back to his incarceration and supervised release. He further alleged that the officer distributed the information in an “all points bulletin” to police departments in other states. Lowe claimed that the information was used against him, exposed him to people he described as criminals, contributed to an assault and removal from a shelter, damaged his reputation, defamed him, and caused hardship and depression. He sought $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Screening of the Complaint

The court granted Lowe’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Under the federal statute governing such cases, however, the court must screen the complaint and may dismiss it if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief.

The court found that Lowe’s allegations did not state a legally recognizable claim. It described his allegations about access to the files as vague and noted that he did not identify legal authority prohibiting the alleged access or a law allowing him to sue the defendant for the conduct described. Although Lowe labeled the case as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he did not explain what civil right the defendant allegedly violated.

Ruling

Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered Lowe to file a first amended complaint by October 21, 2022. The amended complaint had to explain what rights Lowe claimed the defendant violated and how, identify any other statutory basis for his claims, and explain his defamation claim. The court stated that if Lowe did not file the amended complaint on time, it would recommend that the action be dismissed. The court vacated the scheduled case-management conference.

The court denied Lowe’s motion for a temporary restraining order because the motion stated the legal standard for such relief but did not explain what relief he sought or why he was entitled to it.