Cruz v. Villarneal

Background

Alejandro Reyes Cruz, who represented himself, filed suit against Victor Villarneal, the federal government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Oakland Police Department, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. Cruz alleged that unnamed Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies fabricated arrest records, used restraining orders filed under coercion, and verbally abused him during an arrest.

The Oakland Police Department moved to dismiss. Although Cruz did not oppose the motion by the deadline, the court considered the motion on its merits because Cruz had filed other motions indicating that he opposed dismissal. The court resolved the motion without oral argument.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Cruz’s allegations as potentially attempting to assert Fourth Amendment violations and a purposeful-discrimination claim. It held that the Oakland Police Department was not a proper defendant for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows certain civil-rights claims against persons acting under state law, because municipal departments such as police departments are not “persons” subject to suit under that statute.

The court also explained that suing the City of Oakland or Alameda County would require Cruz to identify a municipal policy or custom that caused his injury. The court found that Cruz had not pleaded facts that would impose liability on a municipality under that standard. In addition, the court found that Cruz had not pleaded enough factual content to move his purposeful-discrimination claim from merely possible to plausibly supported.

Rulings

The court granted the Oakland Police Department’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Cruz could file an amended complaint within 14 days that pleaded sufficient facts and named appropriate defendants. The order stated that if Cruz did not amend, or did not correct the identified deficiencies, the action would be dismissed with prejudice.

The court denied as moot Cruz’s renewed motion for a protective order. It also denied on the merits with prejudice Cruz’s motion for settlement, which proposed that he would accept a position as a docket clerk with the court in exchange for releasing his claims. The court stated that it lacked the power to provide the proposed settlement relief.