Hills v. City of Chula Vista

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 Case No.: 23-cv-1067-DMS-DDL MANUEL LUKE HILLS,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 OFFICER SYMONETTE, OFFICER BANDY, SERGEANT ALVAREZ, 17 CHIEF ROXANA KENNEDY, AND 18 JOHN DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, 19 Defendants.

20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike Plaintiff’s 22 Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC, ECF No. 60) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure 12(b)(6) & (f) and Civil L.R. § 7.1.f.3.a. & c. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, did 24 not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. The background of this case will not be 25 repeated as it was extensively discussed in the Court’s prior Order granting and denying in 26 part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC). (ECF 27 No. 59, Nov. 26, 2024). There, the Court dismissed without leave to amend Plaintiff’s 28 Monell claims against Defendants City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Police 1 Department (CVPD), Bane Act claim (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process) against 2 Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and Martin, and Fourth Amendment claims against 3 Defendants Alvarez, Bandy, and Chief Kennedy. The Court granted leave to amend only 4 as to Plaintiff’s other (non-Fourteenth Amendment Due Process) Bane Act claims against 5 Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and Martin. (Id.). The Court denied Defendants’ motion 6 to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims (unlawful detention, arrest, and search) 7 and state law claim for false imprisonment against Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and 8 Martin, and Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force and state law claims for assault 9 and battery against Defendant Symonette. 10 Despite the Court’s Order, Plaintiff realleged claims in his FAC that he did not have 11 leave to amend, raised two news claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for racial 12 discrimination and reputational injury, and did not amend the Bane Act claims for which 13 he was granted leave to amend. The Court interprets Plaintiff’s FAC to allege the following 14 claims: (1) violations of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful detention, arrest, excessive 15 force, and search) against all Defendants, (2) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal 16 Protection Clause against all Defendants (racial discrimination and reputational injury), (3) 17 Monell claims against Defendants City of Chula Vista and CVPD, (4) false imprisonment 18 against all Defendants, and (5) assault and battery against all Defendants. 19 With the exception of the Monell claim, the FAC consistently alleges in conclusory 20 terms for all claims that all “Defendants” caused him harm. However, a “plaintiff must 21 allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved 22 in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 23 1998). The FAC fails to allege what each Defendant did and how that conduct violated his 24 rights. Further, the FAC attempts to reallege claims that were dismissed without leave to 25 amend. 26 Accordingly, Defendants move to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim and 27 failure to file an opposition under Rule 12(b)(6) and Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3., respectively, 28 and to strike the FAC under Rule 12(f). Because the FAC fails to state a claim against 1 ||Defendants under Rule 12(b)(6) given its conclusory and non-specific allegations, 2 ||Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC is granted. In addition, the Court grants in part 3 || Defendants’ motion to strike the FAC under Rule 12(f), which provides that “the court may 4 ||strike from a pleading ... any redundant, immaterial, [or] impertinent ... matter.” The 5 ||FAC’s allegations are redundant of the TAC to the extent they repeat claims already 6 || approved by the Court against Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and Martin, and immaterial 7 ||to the extent they reallege claims against Defendants that were previously dismissed 8 || without leave to amend. Those portions of the FAC are therefore stricken. 9 To the extent the FAC attempts to allege new claims under the Fourteenth 10 || Amendment for racial discrimination and reputational injury those claims are dismissed 11 || without leave to amend. Plaintiff has been given three opportunities to amend his 12 || complaint, failed to sufficiently allege those claims, and failed to file a written opposition 13 ||the present motion. Civ. L.R. § 7.1.f.3.a. & c. (“[Failure to file written opposition] may 14 || constitute consent to the granting of a motion.”). Under these circumstances, the Court 15 || grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and declines to permit further amendment. 16 Defendants are directed to view the TAC as the operative complaint and to answer 17 claims permitted by the Court in its Order granting and denying Defendants’ motion to 18 || dismiss Plaintiff's TAC, (ECF No. 59), to wit: Plaintiff's claims for violations of his Fourth 19 || Amendment rights (unlawful detention, arrest, and search) and false imprisonment against 20 || Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and Martin; and Plaintiff's claims for violation of his Fourth 21 || Amendment right (excessive force) and assault and battery against Defendant Symonette. 22 ||Defendants Symonette, Lopez, and Martin must file their answer to the TAC within 23 fourteen (14) days from the filing of this Order. All other Defendants and claims are 24 || dismissed with prejudice. 26 ||Dated: May 1, 2025 > inn Yn. 27 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 28 United States District Judge