Langham v. City of Union City
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-01753
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Langham v. City of Union City, Judge White denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Malik Langham’s California Bane Act claim.
Malik Langham’s remaining California Bane Act claim was not dismissed and remains in the case; the City of Union City and the individual defendants lost their motion to dismiss.
What happened
Langham v. City of Union City concerns Malik Langham’s allegations that Union City police stopped him, searched his vehicle, and seized it after a traffic stop on October 30, 2022. The defendants argued that his amended complaint did not state a legally valid claim.
The remaining claim is under California’s Bane Act, which allows damages when someone deliberately interferes with rights protected by the Constitution or laws. Langham alleged that officers surrounded his car and acted in a threatening and intimidating way during the search. The court also noted that he had been convicted in traffic court of driving without a license and having tinted windows.
Judge Jeffrey S. White denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that Langham had alleged enough facts to support his Bane Act claim, so that claim was not dismissed.
The detailed version
- Langham v. City of Union City · No. 4:23-cv-01753
- Jeffrey White
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Malik Langham sued the City of Union City, Justin Noyd, Matthew Mangan, Kyle Scarbrough, Brian Ross, and Brian Baumgartner. The case concerns an alleged search and seizure of 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 within two minutes after he entered his vehicle. He was cited for driving without a license and for having tinted windows, and he later was convicted of both offenses in traffic court.
The defendants filed their third motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The only remaining claim was Langham’s claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, commonly called the Bane Act.
Legal standard
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but it does not accept bare conclusions or unreasonable factual inferences. The complaint must allege enough facts to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible.
Bane Act claim
The court explained that a Bane Act claim involving an unreasonable seizure requires allegations that the officer specifically intended to violate the person’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure. A merely deliberate act that turns out to be objectively unreasonable is not enough; the plaintiff must allege an intentional and deliberate interference with the constitutional right.
Langham alleged that the officers surrounded his car and searched it only minutes after he left his driveway. He also alleged that they acted in a threatening and intimidating manner and that he had a witness who could describe intimidation caused by officers at the Union City Police Department. The court found these allegations sufficient to support a Bane Act claim.
Disposition
The court DENIED the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It specifically denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The order did not decide whether Langham will ultimately prevail on the Bane Act claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.