Filed 7/7/22 Michelman v. City of L.A. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO RYAN MICHELMAN, B311658 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCV45379) CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Ryan Michelman, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, and Sara Ugaz, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. ****** Ryan Michelman (plaintiff) sued the City of Los Angeles (the City) and two of its employees for not properly investigating and prosecuting the person who assaulted him. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit. This was correct, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts1 A. The underlying assault In 2017, plaintiff was an Uber driver. Plaintiff had immigrated to the United States from Asia. On October 2, 2017, plaintiff picked up a passenger who appeared to be of Korean descent and who used the name “Maverick.” After plaintiff refused to use the passenger’s preferred route to his destination, the passenger started hitting the back of plaintiff’s head with his fist and, when plaintiff turned his head, landed a blow near plaintiff’s right eye and broke plaintiff’s sunglasses. When plaintiff called 911, the passenger hopped out of the car and fled on foot. B. Investigation and nonprosecution of passenger Two Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers responded to plaintiff’s 911 call. The officers interviewed plaintiff about the incident, documented plaintiff’s injuries, and obtained from plaintiff the destination address the passenger had provided for his Uber ride. 1 These facts are drawn from plaintiff’s complaint. 2 In January 2018, the LAPD detective assigned to the incident, Fernando Pantoja (Pantoja), asked plaintiff to come down to the police station to see if plaintiff could identify his assailant. Plaintiff elected not to show up as agreed, but later showed up on another date. Although Pantoja put a photograph of the person whose name plaintiff provided from the Uber records into a six- or eight-person photospread, plaintiff said his assailant was not in the photospread. Plaintiff spoke with Pantoja afterwards, and from that conversation came to the conclusion that “obviously no charges will ever be filed.” The City Attorney did not prosecute anyone for the assault. C. Nonpresentation of a claim to the City On May 9, 2019, plaintiff wrote a letter to the Los Angeles City Attorney, Michael Feuer (Feuer), complaining about the City’s failure to prosecute the person whose information he had provided from the Uber records and expressing plaintiff’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals