The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 OLADAPO OLAJIDE,
11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-08048 WHA
12 v.
13 GAVIN NEWSOME, in his official capacity ORDER GRANTING
as Governor of California, and XAVIER DEFENDANTS’
14 BECERRA, in his official capacity as MOTION TO DISMISS
Attorney General of California,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 In this civil rights action by a pro se plaintiff, sufficient facts have not been pled against
19 California’s Governor and Attorney General, so the claim must be DISMISSED.
20 STATEMENT
21 Pro se plaintiff raised constitutional claims against California Governor Gavin Newsom
22 and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Plaintiff asserts that on two separate instances
23 in 2004 for 2017, police officers drew their weapons on him. The First Amended Complaint
24 alleges that a fear of police has since seeped into plaintiff’s daily life, and he feels threatened by
25 California Highway Patrol whenever he drives. Plaintiff does not assert a factual connection
26 between the incidents and any actions of the current Governor and Attorney General, so
27 defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS
1
Plaintiff’s pleadings are insufficient on law and fact to state a claim for relief. The First
2
Amended Complaint seeks to bring legal action under the Magna Carta, as well as violations of
3
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
4
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. A hearing on
5
the motion was scheduled for Thursday, March 5. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to
6
submit the motion on the papers. The hearing was vacated. This order considers the parties'
7
briefings without oral argument.
8
Remedy cannot be sought under the Magna Carta. Claims for relief must be grounded
9
in the law of the United States or, in diversity jurisdiction, the law of a state. The Magna Carta,
10
revered though it may be in history, is not law supporting a claim for relief.
11
Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection claims are insufficiently raised under
12
Section 1983, because the First Amended Complaint fails to identify any conduct by
13
Governor Newsom or Attorney General Becerra in connection to the 2004 and 2017 police
14
encounters. Plaintiff asserts that the conduct was linked to the “Governor’s regime.” A Section
15
1983 claim is only sufficient when the plaintiff alleges an actual connection between the actions
16
of named defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social
17
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A plaintiff must assert specific facts connecting named defendants
18
to the alleged constitutional deprivation; “vague and conclusory allegations” remain insufficient
19
to withstand a motion to dismiss. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
20
Here, the First Amended Complaint raises no specific allegations against defendants, beyond
21
their overall involvement in the “regime.” Furthermore, the named defendants had not yet even
22
assumed office when the alleged police encounters occurred.
23
Leave to amend would be futile, as Section 1983 claims, recognized as personal injury
24
suits under relevant law, are held to a two-year statute of limitations. As the last alleged police
25
incident occurred in 2017, the claim is barred.
26
27
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the aforementioned reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Being futile,
3 leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment shall be entered. If plaintiff wishes to appeal, he must be
4 || mindful to file his motion of appeal within thirty days of entry of judgment, and timely perfect his
5 appeal at the court of appeals.
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: March 10, 2020. Pee
WILLIAM ALSUP
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28