SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) - A Black man who sued Suisun City after a homeless man struck him with a stolen vehicle in a racially charged incident had no opposition to a federal judge dismissing the city from the case.

U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd did just that, finding in favor of the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings and closing the entirety of Nickolas Rose's case.

Rose in his complaint said that he suffered a fracture to his vertebrae, along with other injuries, that led to a medical bill of over $500,000. His injuries reportedly stemmed from an August 2020 altercation at the Suisun-Fairfield train station involving a white homeless man who called him a racial slur. After Rose made gestures at the offender, the homeless man stole a vehicle and drove it onto the station platform, striking Rose.  

"Even before this incident, that criminality from the homeless encampment reached over and made the Suisun-Fairfield train station a dangerous place," Rose argued in his suit. "Not only was there criminality at the homeless encampment which included drug use, there was evident symbols of racism and hate, easily seen from the train station."

In his complaint, Rose argued that the city allowed a homeless encampment to stay near the station with no barrier between the two, leading to his injuries. He also said the city facilitated the public nuisance on property it controlled. Additionally, he said it had an obligation to protect people from those risks.

The city in its motion argued that Rose's claims should fail for the same reasons Drozd gave in an April 2024 ruling that dismissed Amtrak and Union Pacific Railroad Company from the suit.

The city followed with its motion for judgment on the pleadings in October.

"As to the first claim for private nuisance, because plaintiff has not alleged that 'he owned or controlled the train station or adjacent property where the relevant events occurred,' judgment must be granted in defendant city's favor," the judge wrote in his Wednesday order.

Concerning the second claim - public nuisance - Drozd wrote that particular type of liability includes damage that's proximately or legally caused by a defendant's conduct. It doesn't extend to damage that's a result of someone else's intervening acts.

Referring to his earlier order dismissing Amtrak and Union Pacific from the case, the judge said Rose's complaint clearly shows that an intervening person caused the harm.

"Namely, the person plaintiff describes as a violent, deranged homeless person, who stole a car, and drove it onto the platform," Drozd wrote.

Pivoting to the final claim, premises liability, the judge again referred to his earlier ruling. The elements are the same - that there's a legal duty of care that was breached and a proximate cause that led to injury. As the city didn't cause Rose's injuries, that claim failed as well.

Suisun City also argued that, aside from the flaws in Rose's claims, Drozd should find in its favor because the complaint was based in common law. Because he cited no statutory authority for them, the claims couldn't proceed against a public entity.

The judge determined he didn't need to analyze that argument.

"Further, in light of the two opportunities plaintiff has already received to amend his complaint, and in light of his filing of a notice of non-opposition to defendant city's pending motion, the court concludes that the granting of further leave to amend would be futile," Drozd wrote.

Rose in November filed a statement of non-opposition to the city's motion.

Having terminated Suisun City from the case, Drozd ruled that the case is closed.

Attorneys for Rose and the city couldn't be reached for comment as of publication time.

Source: Courthouse News Service