King v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Troy King filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government actors for violating constitutional rights. His original complaint asserted Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection and due-process claims against the City and County of San Francisco, along with California claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims arose from a parking citation King received for being stopped in a bus zone.

The court previously dismissed the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally valid claim. The court allowed King to amend by a specified deadline, directed him to allege a municipal policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation, and prohibited him from adding new claims without express permission. The court warned that failing to file a timely amendment would result in dismissal with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be brought again in that case.

After granting King one further extension, the court ordered him to file an amended complaint within 60 days and stated that there would be no further extensions. King filed his first amended complaint 61 days later. It repeated his prior claims and added claims for fraud, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, a Fourth Amendment violation, and racial harassment and discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. King had not obtained permission to add those claims.

Motions and analysis

The City and County of San Francisco moved to strike the late-filed amended complaint. King sought extensions of time and permission to add the new claims. The city also moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court dismissed the newly added claims without prejudice and without leave to amend because King added them without first obtaining permission, contrary to the court’s prior order. The court denied King’s belated request for permission to add those claims.

The court granted the city’s motion to dismiss King’s § 1983 equal-protection and due-process claims, which were based on municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court concluded that King had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation. Regarding equal protection, he did not allege facts showing that the city acted with discriminatory intent because he is African American. Regarding due process, he did not allege deprivation of a protected property interest or show that California’s procedures for challenging parking citations were inadequate. The record described a citation review, a written decision from a hearing officer, and the ability to request a further hearing in state court.

The court also held that the claims would fail even if King had alleged a constitutional violation because he did not identify specific deliberate conduct, policy, custom, or practice by the city that directly caused the alleged injury. Because King had received two opportunities to state a valid § 1983 claim and had not explained how he could fix the deficiencies, the court found further amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court denied King’s motion for leave to amend. It granted the city’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with prejudice as to King’s § 1983 and Monell claims and without prejudice as to the remaining state-law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the power to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed—over those state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court denied the city’s motion to strike as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Alex Tse signed the order.