Collins v. County of Alameda

Background

Kevin Collins was arrested and imprisoned for the December 7, 2017 shooting of Radajsha Briggs. He was released almost two years later, and the charges were dismissed. He was never tried or convicted. Collins then sued the defendants under federal and state law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court had previously granted summary judgment in full to the City Defendants—the City of Oakland, its chief of police at the time, and several police officers. It also granted Ms. Dooher, an Alameda County deputy district attorney, summary judgment on the federal claims but deferred ruling on the state-law claims. The court requested supplemental briefing on those claims.

Claims and Analysis

The state-law claims remaining against Ms. Dooher were conspiracy, violation of the right to privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and private attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

Conspiracy

The court held that civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action. It is instead a theory for holding defendants liable for an underlying civil wrong committed by others. The court also ruled that, even if Collins’s allegations were treated as asserting an underlying tort involving the fabrication or falsification of evidence, the evidence did not reasonably support an inference that Ms. Dooher conspired with Officer Hight.

The court considered allegations that Ms. Dooher approved a second photo lineup, approved a traffic stop used to obtain a new photograph of Collins, and helped create or approve the second lineup. But the undisputed evidence indicated that Officer Hight told Ms. Dooher that Briggs was unsure about her selection from the first lineup. The court also found no evidence that Ms. Dooher approved a stop without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approved an unduly prolonged stop, or later ratified those actions. The second lineup was not clearly unduly suggestive at the time. The court therefore found the conspiracy claim entirely speculative.

Right to Privacy

The privacy claim appeared to be based on Collins’s photograph being taken during the traffic stop. The court applied its prior conclusion that a person generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being photographed in public. It also found no evidence that Ms. Dooher approved an unlawful or unduly prolonged stop or later ratified one.

The court rejected Collins’s argument that Ms. Dooher should have known from the photograph and Collins’s body language that his privacy rights had been violated. Because there was nothing indicating that the stop was problematic, Collins did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being photographed in public. The court also stated, although it was not necessary to the ruling, that Collins’s claim that his lack of consent was obvious had no basis.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court granted summary judgment on Collins’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Dooher engaged in outrageous conduct. The court again noted the lack of evidence that she approved a stop without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approved an unduly prolonged stop, or ratified such conduct. It also noted that the second photo lineup was not clearly unduly suggestive.

Private Attorneys’ Fees

The court ruled that attorneys’ fees are not an independent cause of action and that no viable state-law claim remained to support a fee request. It further stated that Collins appeared unlikely to satisfy California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, which requires a significant benefit to the general public or a large class of people. The court noted that there was no evidence of a deficiency in the government entities’ customs, policies, or practices, and that the claims against those entities had been dismissed.

Disposition

Judge Edward Chen concluded that summary judgment in favor of Ms. Dooher was proper on the state-law claims. The order disposed of the final claims in the case. The court directed the clerk to enter final judgment for the City Defendants and the County Defendants, including Ms. Dooher, and to close the file. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 98 and 100.