Kretzer v. UHaul Corporation
2:18-cv-01681
W.D. Wash.Jan 10, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Morris Kretzer, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued U-Haul Corporation alleging it released his rental information to Kent Police without legal authority, resulting in his arrest and loss of property.
- Initially sued only U-Haul; later amended complaint added the U-Haul Auburn manager and several Kent police officers.
- Plaintiff sought $1.5 million for loss of tools, lost work, pain, suffering, and humiliation.
- Court issued an Order to Show Cause that (1) loss of property and breach-of-contract–type claims do not by themselves invoke federal constitutional protection and (2) U-Haul, as a private actor, is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 absent state action.
- Plaintiff’s amended complaint repeated the allegations that the manager provided rental information to officers, which led to his arrest; the magistrate judge found further amendment futile because the claims do not implicate federal constitutional rights.
- Recommendation: dismiss the § 1983 action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and deny the IFP motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of rental info by U-Haul and manager violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment/privacy rights | Kretzer: U-Haul released rental info without authority, violating privacy and causing unlawful arrest | U-Haul/manager: private actor; disclosure to police during investigation does not constitute state action or a federal constitutional violation | Dismissed: no cognizable § 1983 claim; private actor not acting under color of state law for these facts |
| Whether loss of personal property during/after arrest states a federal constitutional claim | Kretzer: loss of tools and property entitles him to relief under § 1983 | Defendants: claims are property- or contract-based and do not implicate federal constitutional rights as pleaded | Dismissed: property loss alone, as alleged, fails to state a § 1983 claim |
| Whether plaintiff alleged sufficient personal participation by named defendants to state § 1983 claim | Kretzer: alleges manager and officers caused harm by providing info and arresting him | Defendants: complaint lacks allegations showing each defendant’s personal conduct under color of law causing constitutional violation | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead individual participation/state action adequately |
| Whether amendment would cure pleading defects | Kretzer: sought to amend to add defendants and facts | Court: additional amendment would be futile because the nature of claims does not raise federal constitutional concerns | Denied leave to amend; dismissal with prejudice recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements required to state a § 1983 claim)
- Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir.) (personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (definition of acting under color of state law)
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (state-law-derived authority test for state action)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (limits on liability based on supervisory conduct)