Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

James Ellis Johnson filed the action without a lawyer against the City and County of San Francisco. The opinion states that the factual allegations were difficult to follow and appeared to concern attacks Johnson allegedly experienced while sleeping in his home, his interactions with police and the Veterans Administration, and the alleged wrongful towing of his truck.

Johnson asserted two claims containing multiple theories, including being an accessory before the fact to assault, battery, attempted murder, negligence, and fraud, as well as discrimination, slander, defamation, and libel. The opinion states that the complaint did not identify the legal source or required elements of those theories or provide facts supporting them.

Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court also applied Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Johnson’s allegations were presented out of chronological order, introduced events and entities without enough context, and did not give the City adequate notice of what conduct allegedly violated which law or right.

The court held that the complaint could not proceed as pleaded. Although it construed Johnson’s allegations liberally because he was proceeding without an attorney, it explained that a court cannot supply essential elements that were never pleaded.

Individual Issues

Criminal-law theories

The court granted with prejudice the City’s motion to dismiss all claims advanced on the basis of criminal law. It held that private citizens do not have a private right of action to prosecute crimes. Any amended complaint could include only civil causes of action.

Sovereign immunity

The court addressed the City’s argument that sovereign immunity barred Johnson’s state-law claims unless a statute authorized them. Sovereign immunity, as used here, means protection from certain lawsuits unless the law permits the claim. The court allowed Johnson to amend to identify statutes authorizing his state-law claims. If he could not identify such statutes, he could not assert those claims in an amended complaint.

California Government Claims Act

The California Government Claims Act generally requires a person seeking money or damages from a local public entity to present a claim to that entity before filing suit and to plead facts showing compliance or an excuse. The court did not decide whether Johnson’s claim form was timely. Instead, it granted the City’s motion on the ground that Johnson’s complaint did not allege facts showing compliance with, or excusal from, the claim-presentation requirement. The court permitted amendment to allege those facts. Without facts establishing compliance or excusal, Johnson could not assert state-law tort claims against the City.

Discrimination

The court granted the motion to dismiss the discrimination claim with leave to amend. The allegations appeared to concern Johnson’s treatment at the Veterans Administration rather than conduct by the City, and Johnson did not identify a law that the alleged discrimination violated.

Defamation

The court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claim with leave to amend. The statement Johnson challenged was attributed to a Veterans Administration doctor, not to the City. The court also stated that the claim was likely time-barred, while allowing Johnson to plead facts beyond the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic that might establish tolling, meaning a legal basis for pausing or extending the limitations period.

Assault and battery

The court granted the motion to dismiss the assault-and-battery claim with leave to amend. The complaint did not connect the alleged attacks to the City or show that City officials or employees were involved. The court also addressed the asserted limitations problem and allowed Johnson to plead claims that were not time-barred or facts supporting tolling for earlier incidents.

Negligence and fraud

The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligence-and-fraud claim with leave to amend. Johnson’s allegation about paperwork listing restraining orders was bare and did not state either claim or appear to involve conduct by the City. The court allowed amendment to clarify what conduct by the City, if any, was alleged.

Other theories

The court found that Johnson had not actually asserted a theft, conversion, trespass-to-chattels, or municipal-liability claim. Accordingly, it found no such claim to dismiss. The court also stated that towing an unlawfully parked car, as alleged, did not constitute theft by the City.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Johnson could amend only to pursue civil rather than criminal theories, claims not barred by sovereign immunity, and claims addressing the defects identified by the court. He could not add defendants or claims without the court’s permission and had to comply with Rule 8. The amended complaint was due within 30 days of the order, or by November 22, 2023. The court warned that failure to comply with its rulings in an amended complaint risked dismissal with prejudice.