(PC) Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department, 2:17-cv-00434

Plaintiff (pro se, a prisoner) sued after being stopped, patted down, handcuffed, and having his car searched; he alleges officers said he was "driving while black."
Plaintiff's amended complaint named the Sacramento Police Department and Chief of Police; court noted the proper municipal defendant is the City of Sacramento.
Plaintiff alleges a departmental policy (motivated by a memorandum urging officers to "get creative") caused unlawful traffic stops and racial profiling; he also pleaded a state-law negligence claim.
The City moved to dismiss; plaintiff did not file an opposition but moved to convert the motion to summary judgment based on a declaration the City later withdrew from consideration.
The magistrate judge declined to consider the withdrawn declaration, treated the filing as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and evaluated the complaint on its face.
The court found the § 1983 municipal-liability allegations conclusory and lacking facts showing a City policy or causal link, and found the negligence claim defective for failing to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. Recommendation: dismiss both claims without prejudice as to the City.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City is liable under § 1983 for an unreasonable search/seizure based on an alleged police policy	Hogue contends a City/Chief policy urging officers to "get creative" caused the traffic stop and constitutional violation	City argues plaintiff fails to allege an official policy or custom and no causal nexus to municipal action	Dismissed: plaintiff's municipal-liability allegations are conclusory; no facts show a policy or causal link (dismissed without prejudice)
Whether isolated officer misconduct can establish municipal custom	Hogue points to officer comment and alleged widespread practice to infer a custom	City argues random/isolated acts insufficient to establish municipal custom	Court agrees with City; random acts/isolated events insufficient to show custom
Whether the defendant's declaration converts the motion to summary judgment	Hogue asked conversion because a declaration was outside the pleadings	City conceded the declaration is outside the pleadings and did not insist on conversion	Court declined to convert and excluded the declaration; treated motion as Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether state-law negligence claim against City is viable without Tort Claims Act compliance	Hogue asserts negligence without alleging claim presentation	City asserts plaintiff failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege presentation or excuse; claim barred unless compliance alleged (dismissed without prejudice)

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirement that pleadings show factual basis for municipal liability)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing injury)
Vance v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 928 F. Supp. 993 (agency/department is not a proper § 1983 defendant)
Shaw v. State of Cal. Dep’t of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600 (department policies can be imputed to municipality)
Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439 (random acts/isolated events insufficient to establish custom)
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 (Tort Claims Act compliance required for state-law claims against public entities)
Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470 (complaint must allege compliance with Tort Claims Act or be dismissed)