White v. Barbier Security
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-06025
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
White v. Barbier Security: Judge Orrick stayed discriminatory-prosecution claims, dismissed other claims, and denied White’s injunction request.
Travis Tamu White; the San Rafael Police Department, Barbier Security, the San Rafael City Planner, and Ford Greene, whose claims were dismissed; and the parties to the remaining discriminatory-prosecution claims, which were stayed.
What happened
In White v. Barbier Security, Travis Tamu White alleged that people involved in his arrest and criminal charges discriminated against him after he acted to protect himself from a trespasser at his public-housing complex. He sued the Marin District Attorney, the San Rafael Police Department, the San Rafael City Planner, his defense attorney Ford Greene, and Barbier Security under a federal civil-rights law.
The court stayed the discriminatory-prosecution claims because White’s related criminal charges were still pending. It dismissed the claims against the San Rafael Police Department, Barbier Security, the San Rafael City Planner, and Ford Greene. The court also denied White’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily required court-ordered action while the case continued.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered that the action remain stayed until White reports that the criminal charges have ended or that a criminal case is no longer likely. The clerk was directed to administratively close the file while the stay remains in place.
The detailed version
- White v. Barbier Security · No. 3:22-cv-06025
- William Orrick
- Mar. 24, 2023
Background
Travis Tamu White filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The opinion states that White was proceeding without a lawyer. He alleged that he was attacked by a trespasser at his public-housing complex and acted to protect himself. He alleged that those protective acts led to criminal charges and that the prosecution was discriminatory.
White named the Marin District Attorney, the San Rafael Police Department, the San Rafael City Planner, his defense attorney Ford Greene, and Barbier Security, a private security company. He blamed the police for hiring an inadequate private security service and alleged that Barbier Security’s negligence allowed the trespasser to enter the housing complex.
Court’s analysis
Because White was a prisoner seeking relief involving governmental entities or officials, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires identifying claims that are legally viable and dismissing claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court stayed White’s discriminatory-prosecution claims because the related criminal charges had not been resolved. It explained that a federal court may pause a civil case when the claims relate to decisions likely to be made in a pending or anticipated criminal case. If White is convicted and the civil case would undermine that conviction, the opinion states that the civil case would then have to be dismissed; otherwise, it may proceed.
The court also found that the allegations against the San Rafael Police Department, Barbier Security, and the San Rafael City Planner were unrelated to whether the prosecutor decided to file charges. The court stated that the federal civil procedure rule governing claims against multiple defendants requires claims to arise from the same events and share a common legal or factual question. It further stated that the housing-security allegations amounted at most to negligence or gross negligence, which is not actionable under section 1983. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the San Rafael Police Department, Barbier Security, and the San Rafael City Planner.
The court dismissed White’s ineffective-assistance claims against Ford Greene. It explained that a defense attorney does not act under state law when performing traditional defense-lawyer functions, such as entering pleas, making motions, objecting at trial, cross-examining witnesses, and making closing arguments.
Ruling and current status
Judge William H. Orrick denied White’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ordered that the action be stayed until White files a motion to reopen informing the court that the criminal charges have been dismissed, have resulted in a conviction, or are no longer likely to result in a criminal case. The motion must have the words “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page.
The claims against the San Rafael Police Department, Barbier Security, the San Rafael City Planner, and Ford Greene were dismissed. The clerk was ordered to terminate the motion and administratively close the file while the action remains stayed. The opinion does not separately identify each remaining discriminatory-prosecution claim in the conclusion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.