Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 13, 2019
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00662
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0662- AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. ) DISMISSING THE BAKERSFIELD POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE ) AND SGT. WOODS AS DEFENDANTS IN THIS DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ACTION 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 )

17 Conrad Wood asserts that officers of the Bakersfield Police Department and the City of 18 Bakersfield are liable for violations of his civil rights related to the use of excessive force against 19 Plaintiff during his arrest. (Doc. 5 at 1) 20 Previously, the Court found the facts alleged were sufficient to support a claim for excessive 21 force against Officer Teri Harless, but Plaintiff failed to allege cognizable claims against the City of 22 Bakersfield, its police department, or Officer Waltree. (Doc. 3; Doc. 6) Plaintiff informed the Court 23 he wishes to proceed only on the claim found cognizable. (Doc. 7) Therefore, as discussed below, the 24 Court recommends the action proceed only on the claims for excessive force against Teri Harless. 25 I. Screening Requirement 26 When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 27 complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or 28 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant 1 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 2 A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the 3 wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” 4 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). In other words, a complaint is frivolous where the 5 litigant sets “not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke 6 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 7 II. Pleading Standards 8 General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 9 pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the 10 claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may 11 include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 12 A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 13 succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 14 purpose of the complaint is to inform the defendant of the grounds upon which the complaint stands. 15 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted, 16 Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers 17 labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 18 factual enhancement.

19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague 20 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 21 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further, 22 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when 23 the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The 24 plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint 25 pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ 26

27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 28 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 1 conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a 2 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 3 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 III. Section 1983 Claims 5 An individual may bring an action for the deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6 1983 (“Section 1983”), which provides in relevant part: 7 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, 8 any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and 9 laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 10

11 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a 12 federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state 13 law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Williams v. Gorton, 529 F.2d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1976). 14 A plaintiff must allege a specific injury was suffered and show causal relationship between the 15 defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). Thus, 16 Section 1983 “requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants 17 and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff.” Chavira v. Ruth, 2012 WL 1328636 18 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2012). An individual deprives another of a federal right “if he does an 19 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally 20 required to do so that it causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 21 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Thus, “[s]ome culpable action or in action must be attributable to defendants.” 22 See Puckett v. Corcoran Prison - CDCR, 2012 WL 1292573, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012). 23 IV. Factual Allegations 24 Plaintiff alleges that on November 4, 2018, Bakersfield police officers Trisha Waltree and Teri 25 Harless approached him and asked him to “lay down on the ground.” (Doc. 5 at 1) He told the officers 26 that he could not comply because he had a broken rib. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Officer Waltree then 27 “pulled [his] right shoulder and pulled [him] to the ground while Officer Harless struck [him] across 28 [his] back.” (Id.) He asserts Officer Harless also struck him twice more as he lay on the ground. (Id.) 1 V. Discussion and Analysis 2 Based upon the foregoing facts, Plaintiff contends the Defendants are liable for the “use of 3 excessive force.” (Doc. 5 at 1; see also Doc. 1 at 3) 4 The Supreme Court of the United States determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 5 Amendment protects individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime “from the use of excessive 6 force that amounts to punishment.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). However, 7 allegations of excessive force during an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which 8 prohibits arrests without probable cause or other justification. Id. (“claim[s] that law enforcement 9 officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ … 10 are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard”); see also 11 Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1440 (9th Cir. 1994) (“the use of force to effect an arrest is subject to the 12 Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures”). The Supreme Court explained: 13 As in other Fourth Amendment contexts … the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are 14 “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. An officer’s evil intentions will not make 15 a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. 16 17 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97 (1989) (internal citations omitted). In applying this standard, the Ninth 18 Circuit instructs courts to consider “the totality of the circumstances and . . . whatever specific factors 19 may be appropriate in a particular case.” Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 826 (9th Cir. 2010). 20 In Graham, the Supreme Court set forth factors to be considered in evaluating whether a use of 21 force was reasonable, “including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an 22 immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or 23 attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id., 490 U.S. at 396 (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 24 (1985). The Court may also consider “whether officers administered a warning, assuming it was 25 practicable.” George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 837-38 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 26 372, 381-82 (2007). Ultimately, the “reasonableness” of the actions “must be judged from the 27 perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” 28 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. 1 A. Liability of the Arresting Officers 2 Plaintiff admits he refused to comply with the request of the officers to lie on the ground but 3 explained that he could not do so due to a broken rib. (Doc. 5 at 1) In response, Officer Waltree 4 forced him to the ground while Officer Harless struck him with a baton. (Id.) Once he was on the 5 ground, Officer Harless struck Plaintiff twice more with a baton. (Id.) 6 Assuming, as the Court must at this juncture, the facts alleged in first amended complaint are 7 true, the facts alleged supports a claim for excessive force against Officer Harless. See Watkins v. City 8 of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1090-93 (9th Cir. 1998); Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 9 927 (11th Cir. 2000). An officer is not permitted to strike an arrestee after he has become compliant. 10 There are no allegations that Waltree had an opportunity to intervene in Harless’ use of force 11 once the plaintiff became compliant. There are no facts alleged to suggest that the officers lacked 12 legal cause to require the plaintiff to assume a prone position or that the officer’s action in taking the 13 plaintiff’s shoulder and forcing him to the ground was unlawful. Indeed, the plaintiff admits that he 14 refused to comply when Waltree told him to lie on the ground. There mere fact that he was suffering 15 from an injury would not necessarily be a proper basis for the plaintiff to refuse a lawful order by 16 police. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Officer Harless but fails to 17 state a claim against Officer Waltree. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the claim against 18 Officer Waltree be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 19 B. Liability of Sgt. Woods 20 Previously, Plaintiff identified Sgt. Woods as a defendant in the action. (Doc. 1 at 2) However, 21 Plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations regarding Sgt. Woods in his complaint. (See generally 22 Doc. 1) Consequently, the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against Sgt Woods. 23 Likewise Plaintiff did not allege any facts related to Sgt. Woods in his First Amended Complaint. (See 24 generally Doc. 5) Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS Sgt. Woods be DISMISSED as a 25 defendant in this action. See Gonzales v. Lamanuzzi, 2019 WL 636853, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019) 26 (“Plaintiff’s allegations must establish each named defendant’s involvement in the alleged deprivation, 27 as there can be no liability under section 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 28 between a defendant’s actions and the alleged constitutional violation”) citing Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371- 1 72; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980) 2 C. The Police Department as a Defendant 3 Previously, Plaintiff identified the Bakersfield Police Department as a defendant in this action. 4 (Doc. 1) Although municipalities, such as cities and counties, are amenable to suit, sub-departments or 5 bureaus of municipalities—like the Bakersfield Police Department—are “not generally considered 6 ‘persons’ within the meaning of Section 1983.” United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 7 2005); Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 791 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although municipalities, such as cities and 8 counties, are amenable to suit … sub-departments or bureaus of municipalities, such as the police 9 departments, are not generally considered ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983”); see also Gonzales 10 v. City of Clovis, 2013 WL 394522 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (holding that the Clovis Police 11 Department is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983); Wade v. Fresno Police Dep’t, 2010 WL 12 2353525 at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010) (finding the Fresno Police Department to not be a “person” 13 under Section 1983). 14 Because the Bakersfield Police Department is not a proper defendant in this action—and 15 Plaintiff instead named the City as a defendant in his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5 at 1)—the 16 Court RECOMMENDS the police department be DISMISSED as a defendant. 17 D. Municipal Liability 18 Local governments, such as the City of Bakersfield, are “persons” subject to suit for 19 “constitutional tort[s]” under Section 1983. Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F.3d 857, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) 20 (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 n.55 (1978)). To state a civil rights claim 21 against a local government under Monell, a plaintiff must set forth facts alleging the following: (1) the 22 local government official(s) must have intentionally violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, (2) the 23 violation must be a part of policy or custom and may not be an isolated incident, and (3) there must be a 24 link between the specific policy or custom to the plaintiff's injury. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-92. 25 A plaintiff may show a municipal policy or custom in three ways: 26 (1) A longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local governmental entity; 27 (2) The decision-making official was, as a matter of state law, a final policymaking 28 authority whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy in the area of the decision; or 1 (3) An official with final policymaking authority either delegated that authority to, or 2 ratified the decision of, a subordinate.

3 Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, a municipal policy may be 4 inferred from widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the 5 errant municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded. Id. 6 The Plaintiff has named the City of Bakersfield as a defendant in his First Amended Complaint, 7 rather than the police department. (See Doc. 5 at 1) However, he fails to allege facts to support a claim 8 under Section 1983. There are no facts supporting a conclusion that the conduct of the defendant 9 officers was part of an unlawful custom or policy of the City. Further, there is no link between a 10 custom and policy of the City and the alleged excessive force. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege 11 facts to support a claim for municipal liability under Section 1983, and the Court RECOMMENDS the 12 claim against the City of Bakersfield be DISMISSED. 13 VI. Findings and Recommendations 14 For the reasons set forth above, and in the Court’s prior orders, the Court finds Plaintiff is 15 unable to proceed upon his claims against Officer Waltree, Sgt. Woods, the Bakersfield Police 16 Department, and the City of Bakersfield. 17 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 18 1. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Waltree, Sgt. Woods, the Bakersfield Police 19 Department, and the City of Bakersfield be DISMISSED; 20 2. Officer Waltree, Sgt. Woods, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the City of 21 Bakersfield be terminated as a defendant in this action; and 22 3. The action proceed only upon Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for excessive force, 23 against Teri Harless. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 26 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 27 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 1 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 2 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 3 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: August 13, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28