United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
DOCKET NO. 14
M. CHEN United States District Judge
Jabali Jacks filed the instant suit, alleging that Defendant
City of Hayward police officers used unwarranted and
excessive force against him while arresting him, resulting in
physical pain and injury. Docket No. 1 (Compl.). The City of
Hayward, Officer Tran, and Officer Javier (collectively, the
City) now move to dismiss Jacks's state law claims with
prejudice, for failure to comply with California's
Government Claim Act. Docket No. 14 (Mot.).
reviewed the filings and supplemental briefing, the Court
DENIES the City's motion to dismiss.
April 27, 2014, Jacks alleges that he heard a disturbance
occurring outside of his place of employment, and saw a
motorcycle being pulled over. Compl. at ¶ 10. Jacks
began recording the incident when Officer Faria instructed
him to cross the street and come to the officers.
Id. at ¶ 11. The officer indicated Jacks that
he was going to be ticketed for smoking in public.
Id. As Jacks complied with the officer's order,
he continued recording the incident. Id. Once he
came into reach, Officer James slapped Jacks's phone from
his hand and attempted to put him in a carotid restraint.
Id. at ¶ 12. Jacks was slammed to the ground,
his right arm twisted back, and his head slammed into the
concrete. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. After
Jacks's hands and ankles were cuffed, the officers
searched Jacks's backpack and found a gun inside.
Id. at ¶ 15.
April 28, 2014, a criminal complaint charging Jacks with one
count of carrying a loaded firearm and one count of resisting
arrest was filed with the Alameda County Superior Court.
See Docket No. 31 (Yoon Dec.), Exh. A. In the
meantime, Jacks filed a governmental claim with the City of
Hayward on October 20, 2014. See Docket No. 15 (Mot. RJN),
Exh. 2. The City of Hayward rejected the claim on December 3,
2014. Mot. at 3; Opp. at 2.
February 24, 2016, the criminal charges against Jacks were
dropped. Opp. at 2. Jacks then filed the instant suit on
April 27, 2016, bringing claims for: (1) 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim for illegal detention in violation of the Fourth
Amendment; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for wrongful
arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim for excessive force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment; (4) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for freedom
of speech in violation of the First Amendment; (5) 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim for freedom of assembly in violation of the
First Amendment; (6) Monell claim; (7) negligence; (8)
violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (right to
enjoy civil rights); (9) violation of California Civil Code
§ 51.7 (violation of statutory rights); (10) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; and (11) assault and
battery. Compl. at 5-11.
Standard of Review Defendants move for a dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule
12(b)(6) allows for dismissal based on a failure to state a
claim for relief. A motion to dismiss based on this rule
essentially challenges the legal sufficiency of the claims
alleged. See Parks Sch. of Bus. v.
Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). In
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must take all
allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, although
“conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
inferences are insufficient to avoid a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal.” Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063,
1067 (9th Cir. 2009). While “a complaint need not
contain detailed factual allegations . . . it must plead
„enough facts to state a claim of relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Weber v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. However, “[t]he
plausibility standard is not akin to a „probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
City of Hayward seeks to dismiss the seventh through eleventh
causes of action (collectively, state claims) for failure to
comply with the California Governmental Claims Act. Mot. at
4. The Governmental Claims Act states in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and
subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public
entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to
be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of
Part 3 of this division must be commenced:
(1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section
913,  not later than six months after the date
such notice is personally ...