Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Reshma Kamath brought claims arising from the ticketing and towing of her vehicle against the San Francisco Police Department, Federal Protective Services, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Steve Glumas, and two unnamed security guards. The City and County of San Francisco moved to dismiss the claims pleaded against the San Francisco Police Department.

The court had previously granted the City’s motion to dismiss and allowed Kamath to amend two of her three claims. Kamath filed a First Amended Complaint repleading three claims and adding three individual defendants. She did not oppose the pending motion to dismiss, and the time for doing so had expired. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.

Claims and Analysis

The amended complaint asserted claims for: (1) deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) conversion; and (3) civil assault. The court concluded that Kamath had not cured the pleading problems identified in its earlier order.

For the § 1983 claim, the court explained that a claim against a municipality requires facts showing a constitutional violation, a municipal policy, deliberate indifference to the constitutional right, and that the policy caused the violation. The amended complaint still did not identify a policy, custom, or practice that could support municipal liability. The court also found that the complaint’s conclusory allegations did not plausibly show the required violation. It dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim and failure to cure the previously identified defects.

For the conversion claim, the court had previously ruled that Kamath needed to allege exhaustion of the administrative process required by California law for challenging a parking citation. The amended complaint still did not allege exhaustion. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it.

The court had previously dismissed the civil-assault claim without leave to amend because Kamath had not opposed dismissal and had indicated that she was not pursuing a claim under the California Tort Claims Act. The court dismissed that claim again.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. Because Kamath had already been given an opportunity to correct the pleading defects and had not done so, and because she did not oppose the motion, the court concluded that further leave to amend would be futile.

The court separately noted that Kamath appeared not to have served the First Amended Complaint on the remaining defendants. It ordered her to show cause in writing by June 10, 2024, why the claims against those defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve. The opinion does not state that those claims had already been dismissed.