1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER RODARTE, No. 2:24-cv-3430-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KATHERINE LESTER, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Katherine 19 Lester (“defendant” or “Chief Lester”) moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. This matter is 20 before the undersigned pursuant to

(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). For the 21 reasons set forth below, the complaint fails to state a claim and this case should be dismissed. 22 I. Background 23 Plaintiff Alexander Rodarte filed this action in the Sacramento County Superior Court and 24 defendant removed it to this court on December 10, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges he was 25 picked up by police in December of 2020, and, while in the patrol car, the officer was stating “I 26 DON’T WANT TO GO TO JAIL THAT I MIGHT GET RAPPED WHILE IM SLEEPING 27 [sic].” (Id.) The officer was talking to plaintiff and “had knowledge of what happened to 28 [plaintiff] while [he]was in jail in Merced.” (Id.) Plaintiff was let go, but the officer “shared all 1 the negligence in the jail biometrically/cyber infrastructure.” (Id.) Plaintiff brings Fourth 2 Amendment and Negligence claims and seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 6-7.) 3 On December 11, 2024, Chief Lester filed the motion to dismiss presently before the 4 court. (ECF No. 5.) The hearing date was vacated when plaintiff initially failed to file a timely 5 opposition or statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted an extension of 6 time to oppose the motion and has filed a written opposition to the motion to dismiss stating he 7 opposes dismissal. (ECF No. 9.) The court find the matter suitable for disposition without oral 8 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 9 II. Legal Standard 10 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be warranted 11 for “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 12 cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). In 13 evaluating whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as 14 true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to 15 the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding,

(1984); Love v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1989). Particularly because plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court liberally 17 construes the pleadings and affords plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Bretz v. Kelman,

(9th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, courts are not required to accept as true allegations that 19 are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. 20 Golden State Warriors,

(9th Cir. 2001). 21 III. Discussion 22 A. Fourth Amendment (Second Cause of Action) 23 The Fourth Amendment protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. 24 Const. amend IV. “A seizure triggering the Fourth Amendment’s protections occurs only when 25 government actors have, through physical force or show of authority, in some way restrained the 26 liberty of a citizen.” Graham v. Connor,

, 395 n.10 (1989) (internal citations 27 omitted). Here, under the heading “4th Amendment,” plaintiff’s complaint states the following: 28 //// 1 As the 4th amendment advanced to technology amendment my privacy and data have been violated in my constitutional rights for 2 privacy. [¶] As the officer owes a legal responsibility and breached that responsibility by violating my 4th amendment for citizens data 3 causing sever (sic) hardship to my life that is unredeemable[.] 4 (ECF No. 1 at 7.) 5 Here, plaintiff has alleged a restraint on his liberty, but there are no other facts alleged that 6 support a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff also has not offered any facts 7 about defendant’s involvement in or relation to the events described in the complaint. The 8 complaint fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim against Chief Lester. 9 B. Negligence (First Cause of Action) 10 Under the California Government Claims Act, no action for damages may be commenced 11 against a public employee or entity unless a written claim was timely presented (within six 12 months after the challenged incident) and acted upon before filing suit. See

905, 945.4, 950.2. The resulting suit must “allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance 14 with the claim presentation requirements” or the state law claim is subject to dismissal. State of 15 California v. Superior Ct.,

, 1239 (2004). “The requirement that a plaintiff must 16 affirmatively allege compliance with the [Government Claims Act] applies in federal court.” 17 Butler v. Los Angeles County,

(C.D. Cal. 2008). Plaintiff cannot 18 maintain a state law negligence claim against defendant due to the failure to allege compliance 19 with the Government Claims Act. Moreover, in light of plaintiff’s failure to state a federal claim, 20 the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law negligence claim. See 28

(c)(3) (stating that the “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 22 jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 23 original jurisdiction”). 24 C. Leave to Amend 25 Leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires. However, “[v]alid 26 reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” 27 California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics,

, 1472 (9th Cir. 28 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau,

, 1293 1 |} (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have 2 || to allow futile amendments). 3 Here, it clearly appears appear amendment would be futile. To the extent plaintiff attempts 4 || to state a claim under the Fourth Amendment, the complaint does not come close to meeting the 5 || requisite pleading standard for an unreasonable seizure. Plaintiff also has not offered any facts 6 || about defendant’s involvement in or relation to the events described in the complaint and 7 || plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss indicates there are no additional facts plaintiff 8 | could plead to state a claim. If, however, plaintiff can allege further facts to state a plausible claim 9 | for relief, then plaintiff shall include those factual allegations in any objections to these findings 10 || and recommendations. 11 IV. Recommendation 12 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s 13 || motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be granted and this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 16 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 19 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within seven (7) days after service of the 20 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 21 || District court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. □□□□□ 951 22 | F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 | Dated: April 21, 2025 □□ I / dle ae CAROLYNK. DELANEY 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 8, roda24ev3430.mtd 28