Langham v. City of Union City

Background

The case concerns an alleged search and seizure of Malik Langham’s vehicle after a traffic stop involving Union City police on October 30, 2022. Langham alleged that officers had targeted him in the past and stopped him shortly after he entered his vehicle. He was cited for driving without a license and for having tinted windows. The opinion states that he later appeared in traffic court and was convicted of both offenses.

Langham brought a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act. The defendants—the City of Union City, Justin Noyd, Matthew Mangan, Kyle Scarbrough, Brian Ross, and Brian Baumgartner—moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Court’s Analysis

For a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court considers whether the complaint includes enough factual allegations to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible. The court generally accepts factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but it does not accept conclusory statements, unsupported factual deductions, or unreasonable inferences as true.

The court explained that a Bane Act claim requires specific intent to interfere with a person’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The interference must be deliberate or spiteful; allegations showing only that conduct might violate a constitutional standard are not enough.

Langham alleged that the officers acted in a threatening and intimidating manner when they surrounded his car and conducted a search. The court found that, as in his prior complaint, he did not explain specifically how the officers threatened, intimidated, or coerced him. The court also noted that Langham referred in his opposition brief to a witness and to his claim that he was targeted because he had exposed alleged unconstitutional practices, but those facts were not included in the second amended complaint.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim with leave to amend. The court directed that any further complaint allege specific facts supporting the intimidation claim and warned that failure to do so in a third amended complaint would result in dismissal of the matter. The court stated that Langham could file an amended complaint no later than March 1, 2024.