Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office

District Court, N.D. California·Decided July 1, 2025·No. 3:24-cv-08681·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARRIE BANKS, Case No. 24-cv-08681-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended 15 Complaint. The Court held a hearing on June 27, 2025. 16 17 BACKGROUND 18 The factual background of this case is stated more fully in the Court’s prior order at Dkt. No. 19 29 and the Court does not repeat those facts in full here. For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the 20 Court treats as true the factual allegations as stated in plaintiff’s complaint and draws all reasonable 21 inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). 22 To summarize, on or about July 17, 2021, Fernando Altuna Mendoza raped plaintiff Carrie Banks 23 while she was unconscious in her home. Dkt. No. 30 (“FAC”) ¶ 10. In August 2021 Altuna 24 Mendoza was arrested and charged with multiple serious felonies including two counts of rape. Id. 25 ¶ 56. In October 2023, the morning that trial was supposed to begin, the San Mateo County District 26 Attorney’s Office (“SMCDA”) offered Altuna Mendoza “a sweetheart plea deal . . . without ever 27 consulting Plaintiff . . . .” Id. ¶ 13. When Altuna Mendoza was later arrested for a probation 1 probation officer consult with plaintiff before issuing his sentencing recommendation. Id. ¶¶ 78-79, 2 83. The First Amended Complaint alleges that “SMCDA and Probation Department officials 3 excluded and marginalized Plaintiff at nearly every juncture of her case, and the assigned prosecutor 4 demonstrated shocking callousness toward Plaintiff, bias against her, and unseriousness regarding 5 her case.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff also alleges that when she advised District Attorney Wagstaffe about 6 these failures, not only did he fail to intervene or otherwise support plaintiff but “instead 7 compounded the violations of Plaintiff’s rights as the victim of a serious crime, revictimizing her in 8 the process.” Id. ¶ 4. 9 On December 3, 2024, plaintiff filed this suit in federal court. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff sued: 10 San Mateo County, the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, the San Mateo County 11 Probation Department, and various individuals within the District Attorney’s Office and Probation 12 Department. The complaint stated four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for: violation of the 13 Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection; violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process; 14 supervisory liability under the Fourteenth Amendment; and Monell liability.1 Plaintiff also brought 15 five claims under California state law. 16 On April 18, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 29. The Court 17 found the individual defendants were entitled to absolute immunity from the Section 1983 claims. 18 The Court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the County that were brought on the basis of 19 supervisory liability. The Court dismissed the federal claims against the District Attorney’s Office 20 and the Probation Department because these municipal departments were improper defendants on a 21 Section 1983 claim. The Court dismissed the Fourth Claim for Monell liability against the County, 22 for failure to allege sufficient facts in support of this claim. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs’ 23 claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court granted plaintiff leave “to amend only the 24 Fourth Claim (Monell claim) and only against defendant County of San Mateo.” Id. at 13-14. 25 On May 9, 2025, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.2 Dkt. No. 30. Defendants 26 1 See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 27 1 now move to dismiss the Monell claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They 2 also ask that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 3 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if 6 it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 7 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 8 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires 9 the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 10 unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although courts do not require 11 “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, a plaintiff must provide “more 12 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 13 do.” Id. at 555. The plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 14 speculative level.” Id. 15 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court must assume that the plaintiff’s 16 allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Usher, 828 F.2d at 17 561. However, the Court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, 18 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” St. Clare v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 536 19 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations 20 contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 21 If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. 22 The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 23 request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 24 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 25 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 26 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Monell Claim 3 County defendants move to dismiss the Monell claim. They argue that plaintiff fails to allege 4 a constitutional violation and that the FAC does not plausibly attribute any alleged constitutional 5 violation to County policy. Dkt. No. 33 (“Mot.”) at 2. 6 Local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official 7 policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. To establish an official 8 policy that would give rise to Monell liability, a plaintiff must allege facts to support one of the 9 following to survive dismissal of her claim: (1) an unconstitutional custom or policy behind the 10 violation of rights; (2) a deliberately indifferent omission, such as a failure to train or failure to have 11 a needed policy; or (3) a final policy-maker’s involvement in, or ratification of, the conduct 12 underlying the violation of rights. Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249-50 (9th 13 Cir. 2010) (synthesizing authorities), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. Cnty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARRIE BANKS, Case No. 24-cv-08681-SI

7 On information and belief, the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights was part of a continuing, persistent, and widespread custom and practice 8 by the County, SMCDA, and the Probation Department of failing to comply with Marsy’s Law when the victim is female and/or a victim 9 of gender-based violence, including with respect to Plaintiff. 10 FAC ¶ 164. 11 The problem here is that the FAC does not plausibly allege a custom or practice of failing 12 to comply with Marsy’s Law -- the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, Cal. Const. art. I, § 28 -- 13 when the victim is female or the crime is one of gender-based violence. With respect to the case 14 against plaintiff’s attacker, Altuna Mendoza, the FAC alleges that defendants violated Marsy’s 15 Law by, among other things, discouraging plaintiff from speaking in court when the plea deal was 16 entered (SMCDA), failing to notify her when Altuna Mendoza was arrested on a probation 17 violation (Probation Department), and failing to consult with plaintiff before issuing a sentencing 18 recommendation on the probation violation (Probation Department). 19 To establish a countywide custom or practice, the FAC highlights “[o]ther troubling cases 20 [that] are similarly illustrative of the County’s inadequate handling of gender-based violence 21 cases[.]” FAC ¶ 97. However, the incidents highlighted in that paragraph—two from 2019, one 22 from 2020, and two 2023 homicides—contain no allegations regarding compliance with Marsy’s 23 Law. See id. The FAC then alleges additional instances where victims of gender-based violence in 24 San Mateo County had their Marsy’s Law rights violated: an incident from 2010; an incident 25 involving the same prosecutor from an unknown year, in which the prosecutor was suspended by 26 the DA’s Office in September 2012, “privately reproved” by the California Bar in 2013, and publicly 27 disciplined in 2017; a case from 2019; a case from 2013; and a March 2025 plea deal for a homicide 1 To summarize, apart from the allegations involving the plaintiff herself, the FAC identifies 2 five cases involving Marsy’s Law violations for a victim of gender-based violence during a 15-year 3 period from 2010 to 2025. Two of the cases involved the same prosecutor, who was subsequently 4 disciplined by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office for “dishonesty.” See id. ¶ 98. 5 Those allegations are therefore of questionable utility in evaluating the existence of a countywide 6 custom or policy. To be sure, all the cases outlined in the FAC are tragic and at times gruesome. 7 Nevertheless, the Court finds the alleged Marsy’s Law violations are too few and far between to put 8 plaintiff’s assertion that there is a countywide practice over the line from “possible” to “plausible.” 9 See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 10 Here, the FAC fails to plausibly allege the existence of a longstanding custom or practice 11 within the District Attorney’s Office of disregarding Marsy’s Law when the victim is female or 12 when the crime is one of gender-based violence. Notably, the FAC is silent on compliance with 13 Marsy’s Law with respect to male victims. And as defendants note, the FAC is devoid of any 14 instances outside of plaintiff’s case in which the Probation Department is alleged to have violated 15 Marsy’s Law. “Only if a plaintiff shows that his injury resulted from a ‘permanent and well settled’ 16 practice may liability attach for injury resulting from a local government custom.” Thompson v. 17 City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1444 (1989) (citations omitted); see also Gant v. Cnty. of Los 18 Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2014) (liability may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic 19 incidents; “it must be founded on practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that 20 the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy”). The Court finds the custom 21 or policy allegations insufficiently stated. 22 23 B. Failure to Train 24 The FAC also alleges:

25 On information and belief, the County has failed to issue policies and have failed to train, supervise, and discipline its employees within 26 SMCDA and the Probation Department to ensure they comply with Marsy’s Law in a manner that (a) protects the due process rights of 27 female victims and victims of gender-based violence, and (b) does not 1 FAC ¶ 165. 2 In “limited circumstances,” a municipal policy may be based upon the local government’s 3 decision not to train certain employees about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens’ rights. 4 Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011). But the local government’s liability under § 1983 is 5 at “its most tenuous” when the claim is based on a failure to train. Id. Moreover, “a municipality’s 6 failure to train its employees in a relevant respect must amount to ‘deliberate indifference to the 7 rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact.’” Id. (quoting Canton v. 8 Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)). Deliberate indifference is a “stringent” standard, “requiring 9 proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Board of 10 Cnty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997). 11 A “pattern of similar constitutional violations” by untrained employees is ordinarily 12 necessary to establish that the failure to train or supervise is a deliberate policy. Connick, 563 U.S. 13 at 62. Indeed, constitutional violations must be “so predictable” that the failure to train amounts to 14 a “conscious disregard” for those constitutional rights. Id. at 71. Thus, evidence of the failure to 15 train a single employee is ordinarily insufficient to establish that the failure to train was a 16 municipality’s deliberate policy. Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 484-85 (9th Cir. 17 2007) (absent evidence of a “program-wide inadequacy in training,” any shortfall in a single 18 officer’s training was classified as negligence rather than deliberate indifference, therefore plaintiff 19 did not meet his burden to withstand summary judgment). 20 For the reasons stated above regarding custom or policy, the FAC also fails to show a pattern 21 of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees. As noted, the FAC alleges no failures 22 by the Probation Department to comply with Marsy’s Law, outside of the allegations related to 23 plaintiffs’ own case. The allegations regarding the District Attorneys’ Office recount five cases 24 with Marsy’s Law violations, over the course of 15 years, outside of what happened to plaintiff. 25 Two of those instances involved the same prosecutor, whom the District Attorney’s Office 26 subsequently disciplined. 27 Moreover, the FAC fails to meet the “stringent” standard for deliberate indifference. See 1 entered a plea deal but before he was sentenced—plaintiff met with defendant Wagstaffe and 2 defendant Chang, the District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney, respectively. FAC ¶¶ 30- 3 31, 74. “Plaintiff communicated that she believed her Marsy’s Law rights had been violated as a 4 result of Defendant Lee’s and Defendant Adams’ handling of her case, that the rape trauma crisis 5 center was unable to timely provide services to her, and that she hoped they would intervene and 6 prevent the plea deal from going forward. No such intervention or other support occurred, 7 however.” Id. ¶ 74. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Wagstaffe refused to meet with her in May 8 2024, citing plaintiff’s submission of a letter to the Department of Justice.3 Id. ¶ 90. Defendant 9 Wagstaffe has also made public comments about the case since the filing of this federal lawsuit, 10 including statements that “We believe that the allegations of misconduct by my prosecutors are not 11 accurate” and that “If I were to go into detail with the problems in the [Altuna Mendoza] case, I 12 would be personally attacking her.” Id. ¶ 92. The FAC further states that a news outlet reported 13 that “Wagstaffe declined to cite the purported issues with the case but said that, to his knowledge, 14 the DA’s Office committed no misconduct and maintained that she [plaintiff] was informed of the 15 decision.” Id. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel was unable to clarify a question left open by the 16 FAC: whether plaintiff is alleging that the County does not train on Marsy’s Law at all or what 17 precisely plaintiff is alleging the training lacked. These allegations simply do not suffice to 18 constitute “deliberate indifference to a known risk.” See Connick, 563 U.S. at 67 (rejecting theory 19 that “prosecutors were not trained about particular Brady evidence or the specific scenario related 20 to the violation in [t]his case,” explaining “[t]hat sort of nuance simply cannot support an inference 21 of deliberate indifference here”); Bell v. Williams, 108 F.4th 809, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2024) (narrow 22 gaps in training program did not demonstrate “deliberate indifference” on a failure-to-train theory 23 of Monell liability). 24 25 C. Ratification 26 Plaintiff also pursues a ratification theory. She alleges that ratification is evidenced by 27 1 Wagstaffe’s comments to the media following filing of this lawsuit and by Wagstaffe and Chang 2 explicitly failing to follow up regarding plaintiff’s concerns which she shared with them directly. 3 FAC ¶¶ 92, 166, 170. 4 “To show ratification, a plaintiff must show that the ‘authorized policymakers approve a 5 subordinate’s decision and the basis for it.’” Herd v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 311 F. Supp. 3d 6 1157, 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2004)). 7 “Ratification, however, generally requires more than acquiescence.” Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of 8 San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014), rev’d in part on other grounds, cert. dismissed 9 in part sub nom. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Calif. v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015). “The 10 policymaker must make a ‘conscious, affirmative choice to approve [the subordinate’s] actions and 11 adopt them as official policy.’” Kaur v. City of Lodi, 263 F. Supp. 3d 947, 985 (E.D. Cal. 2017) 12 (quoting Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1253). 13 Here, the FAC fails to allege facts that would allow plaintiff’s ratification theory to move 14 forward. At most, what plaintiff has alleged is that Wagstaffe “concluded that the defendant 15 [prosecutor’s ] actions were in keeping with the applicable policies and procedures.” See Lewis v. 16 Nanos, 766 F. Supp. 3d 905, 938 (D. Ariz. 2024) (quoting Garcia v. City of Imperial, No. 08cv2357 17 BTM, 2010 WL 3911457, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2010)). This will not suffice to support a ratification 18 theory based on the District Attorney’s actions. See id. Moreover, the FAC contains no ratification 19 allegations as to defendant Keene of the County Probation Department. 20 *** 21 To summarize, the Court will dismiss the Monell claim for failure to sufficiently allege that 22 any constitutional violation occurred pursuant to County policy. In light of this ruling, the Court 23 does not reach defendants’ alternative argument that the FAC fails to allege the violation of a 24 constitutional tort.4 Likewise, the Court need not reach the question today of whether defendant 25

26 4 Plaintiff did not respond to this argument in her opposition, although defendants fully briefed the matter and the Court previously cautioned that the question of a constitutional tort 27 remained at issue. See Opp’n at 5 n.1; Dkt. No. 29 at 12 (“If plaintiff successfully cures the above 1 Wagstaffe was acting as a State or County actor, see Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750 2 (9th Cir. 2013), as this issue is not determinative given the factual deficiencies in the FAC. Because 3 || plaintiff has already had the opportunity to amend her Monell claim, and the Court previously 4 || cautioned that it would not be inclined to grant further opportunities to amend, see Dkt. No. 29 at 5 11, dismissal of the Monell claim at stage is with prejudice. 6 7 | IL State Law Claims 8 Defendants also seek dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims, for lack of supplemental 9 || jurisdiction. Having found above that the only remaining federal claim in this case should be 10 || dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 11 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to her re-filing 12 || them in state court.

CONCLUSION 3 15 The rights that Ms. Banks seeks to vindicate are not to be taken lightly. Still, the question a 16 || before the Court today is whether she has stated a federal civil rights claim against the County. For 3 17 the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes she has not. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, 18 || plaintiffs “remedy, if any, lies in the state courts or through the political process.” See Dix, 963 19 || F.2d at 1301. 20 The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Fourth Claim for Monell liability 21 is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: July 1, 2025 Site WU tee 25 6 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 27 28

Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office (Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.