1 2 3 4 7 8 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 22-cv-00750-CRB
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS
CORRECTION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd alleges that his constitutional rights were 14 violated at the two county holding facilities where he was detained after he was arrested by 15 Defendant San Jose Police Department (SJPD). He alleges that he was denied adequate 16 access to the bathroom and to a phone call and was forcibly placed into a wheelchair and 17 stripped naked. Am. Compl. (dkt. 19). In addition to suing SJPD, Floyd sued the Santa 18 Clara Department of Correction, the County of Santa Clara, the County of the Santa Clara 19 Office of the Sheriff, and Elmwood Correctional Facility.1 SJPD (but not the other 20 defendants) moves to dismiss because Floyd has not pleaded that SJPD was involved in the 21 alleged events at the holding facilities. Mot. at 7-8. The Court GRANTS SJPD’s Motion 22 to Dismiss with leave to amend. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Floyd is a Louisiana resident. Am. Compl. at 1. Defendant San Jose Police 25 26
27 1 In a separate action pending before Judge Orrick, Floyd alleges that the SJPD violated his 1 Department (SJPD) is a governmental agency in Santa Clara County. Id. at 11. 2 On August 18, 2021 at 9:30 p.m., Floyd was arrested by SJPD. Am. Compl. at 4. 3 Prior to this, he had taken a “concoction that would empty [his] bowels.” Id. After he 4 arrived at the first holding facility, which he does not know the name of, he used the toilet 5 twice. Id. at 4-5. The officers refused when he asked to use the toilet for the third time. 6 Id. at 5. Floyd also asked to make a phone call to his family pursuant to California Penal 7 Code section 851.5, which entitles arrestees to three phone calls immediately upon 8 booking and no later than three hours after arrest, except where physically impossible. Id. 9 The officers again rejected his request and informed him that he needed to wait till he 10 arrived at the second holding facility. Id. 11 On August 19 at approximately 2 a.m., Floyd arrived at Elmwood Correctional 12 Facility, the second holding facility. Id. at 6. He was again denied access to phone calls 13 and bathroom by the staff members. Id. at 5. After Floyd waited for several hours, he was 14 allowed to use the bathroom, but was informed by the officers at Elmwood that he could 15 only make phone calls after he changed into prison clothes. Id. Floyd refused to change 16 his clothes, worried that he would never get a chance to call his family. Id. Several 17 different officers and psychiatrists came and asked Floyd to follow the commands. Id. 18 Several officers at Elmwood allegedly made fake attempts to call the number Floyd 19 provided and told Floyd that the number was disconnected. Id. at 6. Afterward, the 20 officers used force to restrain him and put shackles on his feet and put him in a helpless 21 position, with a boot on his lower back. Id. At this point, Floyd had been detained for 22 more than 20 hours. Id. Floyd felt desperate and decided to cooperate. Id. He was put in 23 a wheelchair and rolled into a jail cell. Id. The officers stripped him naked. Id. Floyd 24 again asked to use the phone, and the officers told him to wait 24 hours due to COVID. Id. 25 Floyd was informed of his Miranda rights shortly after. Id. He was finally allowed to use 26 the phone at 8:30 a.m. on August 20. Id. 27 Floyd appears to allege Section 1983 claims for: (1) a violation of his Fifth and 1 timely access to the bathroom and to phone calls; (2) a violation of the Eighth Amendment 2 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when the staff at Elmwood took him to a jail 3 cell and stripped him naked; (3) a Monell claim based on the related customs and policies 4 at the Elmwood facility. Id. at 7-8. 5 In the amended complaint, Floyd included SJPD as a defendant because SJPD 6 arrested him and brought him to the first facility, so it might be responsible “in case the 7 fault for lack of due process falls at fault with the first facility.” Id. at 8. 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint 10 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal may be based on 11 either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under 12 a cognizable legal theory.” Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th 13 Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). A complaint must plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 14 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 15 678 (200) (cleaned up). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 16 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Id. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court “must presume 18 all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in 19 favor of the nonmoving party.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 20 1987). “Courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts 21 ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, 22 documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may 23 take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 24 (2007). 25 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 26 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has 27 discretion to deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 1 || undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] 2 futility of amendment.” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 3 || 2008). 4 || Il. DISCUSSION 5 SJPD argues that Floyd fails to sufficiently plead that SJPD had anything to do with 6 || his alleged mistreatment at the detention centers. Mot. at 7. Floyd responds that he sued 7 || SJPD because it brought him to the first facility (and he does not know who runs it). 8 || Opp’n at 7; Am. Compl. at 8. 9 Floyd falls short of alleging specific facts to support any claim against SJPD. Floyd 10 || sets forth no allegation that any SJPD staff worked at the first holding facility or were 11 || present when he was subject to the alleged unfair treatment. It is true that allegations in a 12 || pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 13 lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even when construed 14 || broadly, without more, it is implausible to assume that SJPD staff participated in the events 15 |} alleged. Floyd fails to plausibly plead that SJPD is a “person who committed the alleged 16 || violation” that gives rise to his claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 5 17 || Iv.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 7 8 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 22-cv-00750-CRB
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS
CORRECTION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd alleges that his constitutional rights were 14 violated at the two county holding facilities where he was detained after he was arrested by 15 Defendant San Jose Police Department (SJPD). He alleges that he was denied adequate 16 access to the bathroom and to a phone call and was forcibly placed into a wheelchair and 17 stripped naked. Am. Compl. (dkt. 19). In addition to suing SJPD, Floyd sued the Santa 18 Clara Department of Correction, the County of Santa Clara, the County of the Santa Clara 19 Office of the Sheriff, and Elmwood Correctional Facility.1 SJPD (but not the other 20 defendants) moves to dismiss because Floyd has not pleaded that SJPD was involved in the 21 alleged events at the holding facilities. Mot. at 7-8. The Court GRANTS SJPD’s Motion 22 to Dismiss with leave to amend. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Floyd is a Louisiana resident. Am. Compl. at 1. Defendant San Jose Police 25 26
27 1 In a separate action pending before Judge Orrick, Floyd alleges that the SJPD violated his 1 Department (SJPD) is a governmental agency in Santa Clara County. Id. at 11. 2 On August 18, 2021 at 9:30 p.m., Floyd was arrested by SJPD. Am. Compl. at 4. 3 Prior to this, he had taken a “concoction that would empty [his] bowels.” Id. After he 4 arrived at the first holding facility, which he does not know the name of, he used the toilet 5 twice. Id. at 4-5. The officers refused when he asked to use the toilet for the third time. 6 Id. at 5. Floyd also asked to make a phone call to his family pursuant to California Penal 7 Code section 851.5, which entitles arrestees to three phone calls immediately upon 8 booking and no later than three hours after arrest, except where physically impossible. Id. 9 The officers again rejected his request and informed him that he needed to wait till he 10 arrived at the second holding facility. Id. 11 On August 19 at approximately 2 a.m., Floyd arrived at Elmwood Correctional 12 Facility, the second holding facility. Id. at 6. He was again denied access to phone calls 13 and bathroom by the staff members. Id. at 5. After Floyd waited for several hours, he was 14 allowed to use the bathroom, but was informed by the officers at Elmwood that he could 15 only make phone calls after he changed into prison clothes. Id. Floyd refused to change 16 his clothes, worried that he would never get a chance to call his family. Id. Several 17 different officers and psychiatrists came and asked Floyd to follow the commands. Id. 18 Several officers at Elmwood allegedly made fake attempts to call the number Floyd 19 provided and told Floyd that the number was disconnected. Id. at 6. Afterward, the 20 officers used force to restrain him and put shackles on his feet and put him in a helpless 21 position, with a boot on his lower back. Id. At this point, Floyd had been detained for 22 more than 20 hours. Id. Floyd felt desperate and decided to cooperate. Id. He was put in 23 a wheelchair and rolled into a jail cell. Id. The officers stripped him naked. Id. Floyd 24 again asked to use the phone, and the officers told him to wait 24 hours due to COVID. Id. 25 Floyd was informed of his Miranda rights shortly after. Id. He was finally allowed to use 26 the phone at 8:30 a.m. on August 20. Id. 27 Floyd appears to allege Section 1983 claims for: (1) a violation of his Fifth and 1 timely access to the bathroom and to phone calls; (2) a violation of the Eighth Amendment 2 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when the staff at Elmwood took him to a jail 3 cell and stripped him naked; (3) a Monell claim based on the related customs and policies 4 at the Elmwood facility. Id. at 7-8. 5 In the amended complaint, Floyd included SJPD as a defendant because SJPD 6 arrested him and brought him to the first facility, so it might be responsible “in case the 7 fault for lack of due process falls at fault with the first facility.” Id. at 8. 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint 10 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal may be based on 11 either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under 12 a cognizable legal theory.” Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th 13 Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). A complaint must plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 14 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 15 678 (200) (cleaned up). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 16 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Id. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court “must presume 18 all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in 19 favor of the nonmoving party.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 20 1987). “Courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts 21 ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, 22 documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may 23 take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 24 (2007). 25 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 26 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has 27 discretion to deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 1 || undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] 2 futility of amendment.” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 3 || 2008). 4 || Il. DISCUSSION 5 SJPD argues that Floyd fails to sufficiently plead that SJPD had anything to do with 6 || his alleged mistreatment at the detention centers. Mot. at 7. Floyd responds that he sued 7 || SJPD because it brought him to the first facility (and he does not know who runs it). 8 || Opp’n at 7; Am. Compl. at 8. 9 Floyd falls short of alleging specific facts to support any claim against SJPD. Floyd 10 || sets forth no allegation that any SJPD staff worked at the first holding facility or were 11 || present when he was subject to the alleged unfair treatment. It is true that allegations in a 12 || pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 13 lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even when construed 14 || broadly, without more, it is implausible to assume that SJPD staff participated in the events 15 |} alleged. Floyd fails to plausibly plead that SJPD is a “person who committed the alleged 16 || violation” that gives rise to his claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 5 17 || Iv. CONCLUSION 5 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss as to SJPD, 19 || with leave to amend.? 21 Dated: July 22, 2022 Lo 5 — ~ CHARLES R. BREYER 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 || Because the Court concludes that Floyd fails to state a claim, the Court needs not reach SJPD’s 27 alternative argument based on the doctrine of claim splitting. The County of Santa Clara (which did not move to dismiss) recently stated in a filing that 2g || “Plaintiff was booked into the Main Jail and then taken to the Elmwood Correctional Facility.” See dkt. 46 at 1. This suggests that the first facility was also a county-run jail.