1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MALIK LANGHAM, Case No. 23-cv-02275-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 32 10 ANTONIO GRANZELLA, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 32. The Court finds 14 this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. 15 See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 16 Plaintiff Malik Langham initially filed this action in May 2023 against several California 17 Highway Patrol Officers—Defendants Antonio Granzella, Joseph Dagnino, Sean Butler, and 18 Kenton Dewald. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff amended his complaint, alleging that he was stopped by 19 California Highway Patrol Officers while driving on the freeway. See Dkt. No. 20 (“FAC”). 20 Plaintiff alleged that during the traffic stop he presented the officers with a valid Florida driver’s 21 license, but he was nevertheless ticketed and handcuffed, and his car was towed. FAC at ¶¶ 16– 22 28. According to Plaintiff, the officers told him that he could not use a Florida license in 23 California, and they were writing him a ticket and towing the vehicle because Plaintiff was 24 “unlicensed.” Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26–27. The officers searched the car and later dropped him off at a gas 25 station. Id. at ¶¶ 32–42. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brought causes of action for 26 violations of his Fourth Amendment rights under

and California Civil Code § 27 52.1, as well as for assault, battery, invasion of privacy, and negligence. See id. at ¶¶ 61-104. 1 dismiss with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 30. In the order, the Court took judicial notice of 2 documents related to Plaintiff’s traffic citation and convictions. See id. at 1–2. Following the 3 traffic stop, Plaintiff had been convicted in traffic court both for being an unlicensed driver and for 4 driving over the speed limit. See Dkt. No. 25 at 10–11. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claim 5 under § 1983 was therefore barred by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey,

477 (1994). See Dkt. No. 30 at 4. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims for failing 7 to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. See id. at 5. 8 In response to the Court’s order, Plaintiff amended his complaint, dropping the § 1983 9 claim. The operative complaint now only alleges a single violation of California Civil Code 10 § 52.1. See Dkt. No. 31 (“SAC”) at ¶¶ 51–68. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss, and 11 urge that the Court now lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 32 at 4. Plaintiff did not 12 file a response to the motion to dismiss. The Court consequently issued an order to show cause 13 why the motion to dismiss should not be granted, Dkt. No. 33, in response to which Plaintiff 14 explained that he is litigating “as best he c[an]” and “in good faith,” Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff further 15 stated that based on Defendants’ motion, he thought the case could not proceed. Id. The Court 16 acknowledges the difficulty in litigating pro se, and turns to the substance of Defendants’ motion 17 to dismiss. 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise 19 supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 20 Sandford v. MemberWorks, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n the usual case in which 21 all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the 22 pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point 23 toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

(quotation 24 omitted) (original brackets). Here, the SAC no longer contains a federal claim. See SAC. Given 25 the early stage in the proceedings, the Court finds this to be the “usual case” in which judicial 26 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of declining to exercise 27 supplemental jurisdiction over the only remaining state law claim. 1 Civil Code § 52.1 is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court if 2 || Plaintiff may do so consistent with state court requirements and the Government Claims Act. See 3

(c). The Clerk is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: 7/15/2024 6 Abpiprel Mb). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28