Washington v. Keegan

Background

Jason Levette Washington filed the original complaint without a lawyer against M. Keegan and K. Abrams, identified as deputies in the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department; the Alameda County Superior Court; Doe defendants alleged to work for the Sheriff’s Department; Qing C. Li, identified as his former landlord; and several other defendants. The court previously dismissed the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and gave Washington until February 20, 2023, to amend, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend. Washington filed the first amended complaint on February 21, 2023.

The amended complaint added several defendants and described three apparent incidents: an unlawful-detainer eviction case, an altercation with unidentified undocumented immigrants followed by Washington’s arrest and assignment of a public defender, and a library employee’s statement that Washington was banned from using the library. The deputies moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court said the amended complaint asserted 45 claims and was largely incomprehensible. It concluded that many of the defects identified in the original complaint remained.

For claims one and two, labeled “Aggravated Kidnapping Tort” against Keegan and Abrams, the court relied on the same reasons given in its prior order. For claims thirty and thirty-one, also labeled “Aggravated Kidnapping Tort,” the court construed the allegations as false-arrest claims. It held that Washington had not alleged facts showing that the officers lacked probable cause, particularly because he admitted punching another person in the face about five times.

The court held that the claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 failed because those criminal statutes do not create a basis for civil liability. It also held that Washington’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed because he did not identify the specific constitutional rights allegedly violated. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights but is not itself a source of substantive rights.

The court held that the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failed because Washington did not allege purposeful discrimination. It likewise held that the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 failed because the allegations concerning the eviction, police conduct, and a judge’s decision did not allege racial discrimination in the sale or rental of property. The court dismissed claim twenty-nine because it did not identify any legal cause of action.

The court also stated that the amended complaint appeared to seek review of state-court judgments, including decisions in the unlawful-detainer and criminal cases. It explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from reviewing state-court judgments. The court concluded that further amendment would be futile because Washington had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not corrected the deficiencies.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend as to all defendants. Because the complaint was dismissed, the deputies’ motion to dismiss was moot. Judge Susan Illston entered the order on March 9, 2023.