Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samantha Huss, a correctional lieutenant and sworn peace officer at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, sued two Internal Affairs special agents and two other CDCR employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. The facts below are her allegations, accepted as true at the pleading stage. She alleges that on August 11, 2025, a sergeant ordered her to report to the Employee Relations Officer's office, where staff directed her into an adjacent room. Two special agents told her they would interview her but would not describe the subject until the interview was on record. She asked that her supervisor be notified and asked for counsel. One agent told her to sit, and when she tried to leave he covered the door and kept her from exiting. The recorded interview concerned a leaked video of a homicide inside the prison. She alleges she was not told whether the matter was criminal or administrative, whether she was a suspect, or whether she was free to leave. She also alleges she received no Lybarger admonition and feared discipline for insubordination if she ended the interview.
Her complaint pleads six causes of action, including § 1983 claims under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a Bane Act claim, emotional distress and false imprisonment claims, and a claim under California's Public Safety Officer's Bill of Rights Act. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Huss indicated she would voluntarily dismiss all claims against the watch commander and the sergeant, and her Sixth Amendment claim. That left Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against the two agents as the federal claims before the court.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the complaint does not adequately allege a Fourth Amendment seizure. Relying on Aguilera v. Baca, it reasoned that a law enforcement officer is not seized merely because a supervisor orders her to come in for questioning about her duties, and that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against threatened job consequences. Being directed to an office to meet internal affairs officers, fearing discipline, and wanting more information or a lawyer did not amount to a seizure. The allegation that an agent covered the door was too sparse, with no detail about her attempt to leave, how the door was covered, or other circumstances. The court also found the claim that any seizure was unreasonable merely conclusory.
The Fifth Amendment claim also failed. The court found no facts showing she gave testimony and no allegation that her statements were used against her in any criminal proceeding. It cited a District of Arizona decision applying Chavez v. Martinez for the rule that such a § 1983 claim requires use of an incriminating statement in a criminal prosecution.
The court granted the motion. The Sixth Amendment claim and all claims against the watch commander and sergeant were dismissed based on non-opposition; the order does not say whether that dismissal is with or without prejudice. The Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and Huss has fourteen days to file an amended complaint. The court did not rule on the state-law claims or on defendants' arguments against them. Unless she pleads a federal claim, it will decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismiss the state claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Under Aguilera v. Baca, an officer ordered by a supervisor to attend questioning about her duties is not seized merely because she fears employment consequences.
- An allegation that an agent covered a door needs factual detail about the attempt to leave and the manner of blocking to plead a seizure.
- As the court framed it, a § 1983 Fifth Amendment claim requires an allegation that an incriminating statement was used in a criminal prosecution.
- Dismissal with leave to amend is not a final judgment, and Huss has fourteen days to replead the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims.
- The state-law claims are unresolved and will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless a federal claim is adequately pleaded.
Why It Matters
This is a pleading-stage order from a single district judge, and it does not decide whether the events occurred as alleged. It applies Ninth Circuit authority in Aguilera to internal affairs questioning of peace officers. It also identifies the missing detail needed to plead a seizure when an officer says a door was blocked.
What remains open is whether an amended complaint cures the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims. If it does, the court will take up defendants' arguments against the state-law claims, which it deferred. District court orders like this one are not binding precedent.