Opinion
CASE NO. C02-2001C
January 24, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6), plaintiffs motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 13), and plaintiff's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 16). The Court has considered the papers submitted by the parties and determined that oral argument is not necessary. For the following reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, plaintiff's motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED, and plaintiffs motion to strike is hereby DENIED.
Upon vacating its dismissal of this action, the Court re-noted defendants' motion to dismiss for December 27, 2002 (Dkt. No. 12). Plaintiff filed no response in opposition to defendants' motion. Instead, on December 20, 2002, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and a motion to strike. To the extent those motions address issues raised in defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court construes the motions as timely opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Although defendants' motion to dismiss initially raised four arguments, defendants subsequently filed an amended answer waiving defenses relevant to proper filing of the complaint and proper service of process (Dkt. No. 21). Therefore, the remaining issues go to whether this action is subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Generally, [i]f a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit." Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2) (2002).
On defendants' motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), this Court may only dismiss plaintiffs claims if it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts that support his claims and entitle him to relief.Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237 (1974). The Court must construe all factual allegations in plaintiff's favor. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he parked his vehicle along a highway exit ramp in order to post political campaign signs nearby on the afternoon of October 11, 2000. Plaintiff alleges that he had parked here before without incident. Plaintiff alleges that, due to a low battery, his vehicle was inoperable when he returned. Plaintiff removed the battery for re-charging, left the vehicle along the exit ramp, and returned the morning of October 12, 2000. His vehicle was gone. Plaintiff telephoned the State Patrol, which notified him that his vehicle was towed October 11, 2000. Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not make reasonable efforts to contact him before towing the vehicle, did not place a visible notification sticker on the vehicle, and did not wait twenty-four hours before towing the vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the tow, impoundment, and search incident to impoundment violated his federal constitutional rights.
For purposes of this motion, the Court accepts plaintiff's factual allegations as true. Nevertheless, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Nether the State Patrol nor its officers violate a citizen's federal constitutional rights by towing an unattended vehicle parked alongside an interstate highway, impounding that vehicle, or searching the vehicle incident to the impoundment. Further, plaintiffs claims are frivolous. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action with prejudice for plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for frivolity.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff moves for sanctions on numerous grounds, including defendants' reference to "selling drugs and prostituting" and defendants' position regarding service of process. In general, plaintiff alleges that defendants have filed their pleadings in bad faith. With respect to defendants' reference to "selling drugs and prostituting", plaintiffs own affidavit, first lodged with the Court on September 23, 2002, states: "The impoundment was arbitrary prejudiced against the plaintiff and it cause severe economic duress and it enticed me to deal with illegal drugs or prostitute. It would eventually put roe in a situation of involuntary servitude." Plaintiff has no basis to challenge defendants' reference to plaintiffs own fantastic allegations. In addition, the papers submitted by defendants reflect an ongoing discussion between the parties regarding service of process, waiver of proper service, and related issues. In sum, plaintiff does not persuade the Court that defendants acted in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or delay. Thus, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion for sanctions. Finally, plaintiff moves to strike defendants' amended answer and demand for jury trial. Plaintiffs arguments regarding the level of detail and affirmative defenses in defendants' answer are without merit. Therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to strike and request for attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.