 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoyinka v. City of Santa Monica7/26/2004
ficer accepted custody of plaintiff from another person who had made a citizen's arrest. (Shakespeare v. City of Pasadena (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 375, 382; see Kinney v. County of Contra Costa (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 761, 768.) Accordingly, plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action for false imprisonment, and the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend.
3. Civil Conspiracy
*4 Plaintiff stated in his second amended complaint that the Santa Monica and Los Angeles City Attorneys conspired to have plaintiff falsely arrested for committing certain sex crimes. Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 784.) Plaintiff failed even to state a cause of action for false imprisonment, and alleged no facts demonstrating the formation and operation of a conspiracy.
4. Constitutional Claims
Plaintiff's argument on appeal that he was denied his right to equal protection under the California Constitution is unmeritorious. The trial court did not deny plaintiff his right to equal protection when it ruled in favor of city. As explained above, there is ample justification for the court's determination that city's demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend.
Plaintiff's argument that the demurrer statute is unconstitutional is also without merit. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion on appeal, a California state court is not subject to the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the demurrer statute is constitutional, and it was properly applied in this case.
Any other potentially viable claims of constitutional violations and other similar claims should have been addressed long ago on direct appeal of the criminal judgments or in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is too late to assert these claims now. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(a); 36 Cal.Jur.3d (1997) part 1, Habeas Corpus, § 66.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|