Dominguez v. Abaci

Background

Elijah Dominguez, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued John Allan Abaci and other individuals connected to the Martinez Police Department. His complaint concerned requests for records related to his September 23, 2019 arrest, especially body-worn-camera footage. He alleged violations of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Public Records Act (CPRA). He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.

The records responses described in the complaint provided some materials but withheld or denied other materials for reasons including the absence of responsive records and investigative privileges under California law. Dominguez also alleged that the City of Martinez concealed records, improperly limited access based on the purpose of a request, and that a law firm had abused its license in obtaining a workplace-violence restraining order.

Screening standard

Because Dominguez was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the U.S. Marshal to serve it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally and that leave to amend generally should be granted when additional facts might cure the pleading’s problems.

Analysis

The court held that the First Amendment does not require the government to provide access to government information or sources of information within its control. Therefore, the alleged failure to provide public records did not state a constitutional violation, and a challenge to the City’s CPRA responses could not proceed as a civil-rights claim under § 1983 on the allegations presented.

The CPRA does provide a private right of action, but that claim arises under state law. The court explained that it could hear the state claim in federal court through diversity jurisdiction only if the opposing parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint stated that all parties were California citizens, so complete diversity was absent. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over the CPRA claim and noted that the public-records claim could be filed in state court.

The court discussed, but did not finally resolve, several CPRA issues concerning disclosure of officer personnel records, critical-incident body-camera recordings, and records withheld during an active investigation. It also explained that the complaint contained other allegations, including an allegation that officers used force during the arrest, that might support a different claim if described more fully.

Disposition

The court did not enter a final dismissal in this screening order. Instead, it allowed Dominguez to amend the complaint to explain more fully what happened and to identify any claim related to the arrest or restraining orders. He could alternatively file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice to filing a state-court lawsuit asserting state claims. If he did neither by September 11, 2023, the court stated that the case would be reassigned and dismissal would be recommended.

Judge

The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.