United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 91
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendant City and County of San Francisco
(“CCSF”). Dkt. No. 91. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS CCSF's motion.
Allegations Because Plaintiff Kaimin Jimmy Jen has
submitted no evidence in response to CCSF's motion for
summary judgment, the Court briefly summarizes the relevant
factual allegations in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint
to provide context.
a former engineer, brought suit against CCSF and three other
named defendants: Dennis Herrera (“Herrera”),
city attorney for CCSF; Rafael Tores-Gil
(“Tores-Gil”), supervisor of the Code Enforcement
Division within the Building Department for CCSF; and Mike
Klose (“Klose” and, collectively with CCSF,
Herrera, and Tores-Gil, “Defendants”), the chief
investigative officer for CCSF's district attorney's
office. See Dkt. No. 60 (Fourth Amended Complaint,
or “FAC”) ¶¶ 8-10. Plaintiff alleges
that, beginning in 1999, Defendants engaged in “a
campaign of . . . discrimination, harassment, retaliation,
humiliation, defamation of character, intimidation, and
malicious prosecution against [Plaintiff], his family and
people of Chinese background, and other minorities.”
Id. ¶ 13.
culminated in 2010, when Herrera “urged the District
Attorney's Office to launch a criminal
investigation” into Plaintiff regarding a forged
signature and license stamp used on his construction
projects. See Id. ¶ 21. Klose led the
investigation into Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 23. During
the course of their investigation, Defendants are alleged to
have harassed Plaintiff, see Id. ¶ 22, ignored
evidence favorable to Plaintiff, see Id.
¶¶ 23-24, and falsified evidence to “persuade
the prosecutors to prosecute [Plaintiff] in violation of his
civil rights, ” see Id. ¶ 25.
August 3, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested. Id. ¶
29. CCSF “levied 232 fabricated charges against”
Plaintiff, “set . . . bail at $50 million, ” and
incarcerated Plaintiff for four years. See Id.
¶ 30. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants
“knew that there was no probable cause to charge [him]
with any crime, ” but nonetheless “used and
relied on evidence at the preliminary hearing to create
probable cause they knew was false.” Id.
¶ 34. On August 8, 2014, however, “all charges
were dismissed.” Id. ¶ 30.
filed the original complaint in this action on August 21,
2015. Dkt. No. 1. In response, CCSF filed a motion to strike,
Dkt. No. 6, and a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7. On July 11,
2016, the Court ruled on CCSF's motions. Dkt. No. 29.
Construing the complaint liberally, the Court found that
Plaintiff alleged several causes of action, but dismissed
most of the claims with prejudice based on uncorrectable
legal defects. See Dkt. No. 29 at 20-21.
August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a First
Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 38, which the Court struck on
October 5, 2016, see Dkt. No. 47. Apparently without
filing a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Third
Amended Complaint on October 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 49. On
January 9, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend and striking it
from the record because it was a legal brief rather than a
complaint. Dkt. No. 57 at 2-3. In so doing, the Court
enumerated Plaintiff's remaining claims: (1) false arrest
and racial and national origin discrimination under Cal. Civ.
Code § 52.1(b) relating to his 2010 arrest and 2014
prosecution; and (2) racial and national origin
discrimination and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, and 1985 relating to his 2010 arrest and 2014
prosecution. See Id. at 2.
filed the FAC on January 27, 2017. Dkt. No. 60. On February
13, 2017, CCSF moved to dismiss the FAC's fourth and
fifth causes of action: violation of Cal. Civ. Code §
52.1(b), and false arrest and false imprisonment,
respectively. See Dkt. No. 62 at 1. CCSF
concurrently filed a motion to strike those causes of action
from the FAC. See Dkt. No. 61. On April 20, 2017,
the Court granted both motions, Dkt. No. 69, leaving only
Plaintiff's claims of racial and national origin
discrimination and conspiracy relating to his 2010 arrest and
2014 prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and
29, 2017, CCSF filed a motion to dismiss the claims against
Herrera, Tores-Gil, and Klose, Dkt. No. 85, and a motion for
summary judgment as to the claims against CCSF, Dkt. No. 91.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either motion.
Instead, on July 11, 2017, he filed a motion seeking, as
relevant here, an extension of time to respond to CCSF's
motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 99 at 4.
On July 24, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's request
for an extension of time and took CCSF's motion to
dismiss and motion for summary judgment under
submission. Dkt. No. 105. The Court did allow
Plaintiff until August 4, 2017 to file oppositions to those
motions, however. See Id. On August 4, instead of
filing an opposition, Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the
Court's order denying his July 11 motion for an extension
of time, and sought 45 additional days to respond to the
motions. Dkt. No. 106.
March 28, 2018, the Court granted CCSF's motion to
dismiss. See Dkt. No. 119 at 1-3. In the same order,
the Court denied as moot Plaintiff's August 4 request for
reconsideration. See Id. at 3-4. It also directed
Plaintiff to file any opposition to CCSF's pending motion
for summary judgment by May 7, 2018, and warned Plaintiff
that no further extensions would be granted. Id. at
5. Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion.