Powelson v. Sausalito Police Department

Background

Robbie Powelson sued the City of Sausalito and city employees over several incidents involving his support for a homeless encampment at Dunphy Park and Marinship Park. He proceeded without a lawyer. The City Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which tests whether a complaint adequately states a claim.

The complaint alleged five groups of events: (1) Powelson’s June 29, 2021 arrest after he stepped between Sgt. Steven Vereios and an elderly camper; (2) citations and notices concerning Powelson’s camping in November 2021; (3) the seizure of campers’ property and Powelson’s arrest while he tried to help another camper; (4) the March 15, 2022 towing of Powelson’s truck and alleged push by Det. Davin Rose; and (5) due-process problems involving parking tickets and the related hearing process.

Rulings on the Claims

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims based on § 1985(3), which addresses certain conspiracies to deprive people of equal protection or equal privileges. The court held that Powelson had not alleged the required racial or class-based discriminatory motive. The conclusion states that all § 1985 claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The court did not dismiss Powelson’s potential conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City Defendants challenged that theory for the first time in their reply brief, and the court declined to consider that argument.

Named defendants. The court denied the request to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 because Sgt. Vereios and Capt. Bill Fraass were not clearly listed in the caption or initial defendant list. It also denied the request to dismiss Count 11 because Elliott Holt was not clearly listed there. The court also denied the alternative request to require Powelson to amend the complaint to join those individuals. It liberally construed the complaint and found that the allegations showed Powelson intended to sue them. The court noted a possible service problem and directed the parties to meet and confer about service.

June 29, 2021 arrest. Count 3 alleged false arrest, and Count 4 alleged First Amendment retaliation. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning Count 3. For the alleged obstruction arrest, the court found probable cause based on Powelson’s alleged physical intervention between the officer and the camper, and found qualified immunity—the protection for officials unless they violated a federal right that was clearly established—at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Powelson was given leave to amend that portion in good faith. For the alleged arrests for inciting a riot and illegal camping, the court found no qualified immunity based on the complaint, and that portion remained viable.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Count 4 to the extent it was based on the alleged inciting-a-riot and illegal-camping arrests. It dismissed Count 4 in part based on the alleged obstruction arrest because probable cause existed and the complaint did not allege an exception to the usual probable-cause rule for retaliation claims. The conclusion describes that partial dismissal as with prejudice but also says Powelson has leave to amend, creating an inconsistency in the stated disposition.

November 22, 2021 events. Count 5 alleged malicious prosecution based on the illegal-camping infraction. The court dismissed the claim because Powelson did not adequately plead the absence of probable cause, but granted leave to amend.

Count 6 alleged First Amendment retaliation based on the same infraction. The court dismissed the claim with leave to amend. It held that Powelson had not shown that the narrow exception to the probable-cause requirement applied because he did not provide objective evidence that similarly situated people who were not engaged in the same protected activity avoided citations.

Count 7 included unlawful seizure, false arrest, and excessive force claims arising from the officers’ seizure of property and arrest of Powelson while he tried to help another camper. The court denied the motion to dismiss the unlawful-seizure and false-arrest portions. It rejected the argument that Powelson lacked standing because the allegations could reasonably be read to include the seizure of his own property. It also declined to consider a qualified-immunity argument raised for the first time in the reply brief.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the excessive-force portion of Count 7 because Powelson did not oppose that part of the motion. The dismissal was with prejudice.

Count 8 alleged First Amendment retaliation based on the same incident. The court denied the motion to dismiss because the allegations left at least a factual question about probable cause.

March 15, 2022 towing incident. Count 9 alleged First Amendment retaliation and Count 10 alleged excessive force based on the towing of Powelson’s truck and Det. Rose’s alleged push. The court denied the motion to dismiss both counts.

Parking-ticket due process. Count 11 alleged procedural due process violations concerning Powelson’s truck towing, his requests for a hearing, and the system for reviewing parking tickets. The court granted the motion to dismiss only to the extent Count 11 challenged the parking-ticket adjudicatory scheme, because the City Defendants were not part of that scheme. The court did not dismiss the remainder of Count 11.

General due-process claim. Count 12 broadly alleged that all defendants violated Powelson’s due-process rights. The court dismissed Count 12 with prejudice because Powelson did not address it in his opposition and because the claim was conclusory or vague. The court also noted that constitutional claims based on alleged arrests, force, or seizures may need to be analyzed under more specific constitutional protections rather than generalized substantive due process.

Disposition and Next Step

The court granted in part and denied in part the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Except where a dismissal was with prejudice, Powelson had leave to amend in good faith. The court ordered him to file an amended complaint by December 6, 2023; if he did not, the City Defendants were to answer by December 20, 2023. Judge Edward Chen stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 23.