El Bey v. Lui

Background

Jeffrey El Bey filed a first amended complaint concerning the towing and impoundment of his car for allegedly not being registered. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires screening of a complaint filed by a person seeking to proceed without paying filing fees. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, but determined that another amendment might not be futile.

Fourth Amendment claim

El Bey brought a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court explained that impounding a car is a seizure of property and must be justified under an exception to the warrant requirement, such as the community-caretaking doctrine.

The court said El Bey might be able to state a Fourth Amendment claim, but his complaint did not explain how any defendant participated in towing or impounding the car. Merely naming defendants was not enough. The court required El Bey to describe what each defendant did.

Other claims

The court held that El Bey could not amend his other claims:

- The claim under Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution concerned Congress’s power to borrow money and did not relate to the alleged towing and impoundment. - The interstate-travel claim failed because the right to travel between states does not include a fundamental right to drive a car, and the court found that right was not implicated here. - The claim under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 concerned the relationship between states regarding fugitive slaves. The court said the clause was abrogated by the Thirteenth Amendment and did not apply to the towing allegations. - The Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim did not apply because El Bey did not allege that he was a convicted prisoner, and the towing occurred outside prison. - The Fifth Amendment due-process claim did not apply because that clause governs actions by the federal government, and none of the defendants was identified as a federal actor. - The claim involving “Corpus Delicti,” a phrase referring to proving that a crime occurred before convicting someone, did not apply because El Bey was bringing a civil lawsuit rather than facing criminal prosecution. - The claim involving “Indictment Papers” did not apply because indictments arise in certain criminal proceedings and no indictment was involved.

Disposition

The court allowed El Bey to replead—that is, file another version of—his Fourth Amendment claim identifying each defendant’s alleged participation. He could add new claims only with the court’s permission. The court ordered him to file a second amended complaint by May 10, 2023. If he did not do so, or if the new complaint failed to state a viable claim, the court stated that it would recommend that a district judge dismiss the case. The Clerk was directed not to issue summonses or serve the first amended complaint on the defendants. Judge Alex G. Tse signed the screening order.