Michael Ward v. City of Redding, et al.

Summary

This document is a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations in a pro se civil-rights action arising from a traffic stop and arrest by Redding police officers. It recommends granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which asserted claims under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and recommends closing the case.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not state a Bane Act claim because its only asserted basis for specific intent was an alleged verbal declaration that officers intended to use excessive force, and the incorporated video contradicted that allegation. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended.
2. The officer defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Ward's detention, no clearly established First Amendment right permitted a person being detained for investigatory purposes to personally record his own detention. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended.
3. Ward did not state a Fourth Amendment claim challenging the traffic stop, detention, or arrest because the officers had probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause to detain and arrest him after his prolonged refusal to identify himself during the traffic stop. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended.
4. Ward did not state an excessive-force claim because the complaint's conclusory allegations were contradicted by the incorporated video, which showed officers using minimal and objectively reasonable force to remove and restrain him after he failed to follow instructions and resisted the investigation. Dismissal without leave to amend was recommended.
5. Ward did not state an unlawful-seizure claim because the incorporated video showed that the officer placed the keys in the vehicle rather than throwing them on the ground or permanently depriving Ward of them. Dismissal was recommended.
6. Ward did not state a Fifth Amendment claim because he did not allege that any statement was compelled and used against him in a criminal proceeding. Dismissal was recommended.
7. Ward did not plausibly allege that the officers acted with discriminatory intent or purpose based on race. Dismissal was recommended.
8. Ward did not state a municipal-liability claim because he did not identify an official municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional injury, and he did not adequately allege any underlying constitutional violation.
9. Ward did not state claims under Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because the complaint and incorporated video did not plausibly show wrongful arrest, failure to accommodate, or greater injury or indignity caused by disability discrimination. Dismissal was recommended.
10. Further leave to amend should be denied because amendment would be futile in light of the allegations and incorporated video evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim based on alleged threats, intimidation, or coercion.
2. Whether Ward stated a First Amendment claim based on interference with his attempt to record police while detained.
3. Whether the alleged traffic stop, detention, and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether the officers used objectively excessive force in removing and restraining Ward.
5. Whether the officers unlawfully seized Ward's vehicle keys.
6. Whether Ward stated a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim based on his refusal to identify himself.
7. Whether Ward plausibly alleged race discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
8. Whether Ward stated a municipal-liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. Whether Ward stated claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
10. Whether dismissal should be without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed