Ronald Collins v. City of Colton

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 2018
Docket17-55634
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ronald Collins v. City of Colton (Ronald Collins v. City of Colton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronald Collins v. City of Colton, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD J. COLLINS, No. 17-55634

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 5:15-cv-01771-CAS-KK v. 5:15-cv-02470-CAS-KK

CITY OF COLTON, a public entity; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2018 Pasadena, California

Before: LIPEZ,** TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Ronald J. Collins brought suit against the appellees—Police

Detective Jack Morenberg, the City of Colton, and Scott Chadwick, the owner of a

car dealership—for, among other claims, unreasonable seizure of Collins' vehicle

and documents by Detective Morenberg, malicious prosecution by Detective

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. Morenberg and Chadwick, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

by Detective Morenberg. After discovery, the district court granted defendants'

motions for summary judgment on all counts. Collins appeals that judgment. We

review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Szajer v. City of

L.A., 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we

do not further recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

1. Unreasonable Seizure. Collins asserts that Detective Morenberg's

warrantless seizure of his truck, and the documents contained therein, lacked

probable cause, and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against

unreasonable seizure. See United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491 (9th Cir. 1985)

(holding that under the automobile exception "the existence of probable cause alone

justifies a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle"). Collins brings this claim

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Determinations of probable cause are "evaluated in

light of the totality of the circumstances." United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262

F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir. 2001). The existence of probable cause is solely "based upon

the information the officer had at the time," not what information was subsequently

discovered. John v. City of El Monte, 515 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2008). "Probable

cause is an objective standard. The arresting officers' subjective intention . . . is

immaterial in judging whether their actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment

2 17-55634 purposes." United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007).

It is undisputed that (1) Chadwick reported the theft of a set of license plates

to the police; (2) Chadwick showed Detective Morenberg a DMV statement

reporting that Collins purchased a truck from him as an out-of-state sale, with no

license fee paid; (3) Chadwick told Detective Morenberg that he had instructed an

employee to remove the license plates from the truck before Collins took ownership

of it; and (4) Detective Morenberg discovered the plates affixed to Collins' truck, at

an in-state motel. On these undisputed facts, judged according to an objective

standard at the time the truck was seized, "a prudent person would have concluded

that there was a fair probability that [the accused] had committed a crime." United

States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1986). Collins fails to put forth evidence

to place probable cause in genuine dispute. Accordingly, Collins fails to show that

Detective Morenberg violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing the truck.

See Bagley, 772 F.2d at 491.

2. Malicious Prosecution. As for Collins' respective malicious prosecution

claims against Detective Morenberg and Chadwick—the former a § 1983 claim and

the latter a common law claim under state law—Collins puts forth insufficient facts

to rebut the "Smiddy presumption." See Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266 (9th

Cir. 1981) (Smiddy I), overruled on other grounds by Beck v. City of Upland, 527

F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2008). "Smiddy I held that there is a rebuttable presumption

3 17-55634 that a prosecutor exercises independent judgment regarding the existence of

probable cause in filing a complaint. The presumption can be overcome, for

example, by evidence that the officers knowingly submitted false information[.]"

Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (Smiddy II). Unless the

presumption is overcome, it "insulates the [appellees] from liability for harm

suffered after the prosecutor initiated formal prosecution." Id. We have also held that

"a plaintiff's account of the incident in question, by itself, does not overcome the

presumption of independent [prosecutorial] judgment" because "[a] suspect's

account of an incident, by itself, is unlikely to influence a prosecutor's decision."

Newman v. Cty. of Orange, 457 F.3d 991, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted).

Collins has not carried his burden of producing evidence that Detective

Morenberg or Chadwick knowingly supplied false information to the charging

authorities, thereby improperly furthering Collins's prosecution. See Smiddy, 803

F.2d at 1471. To the extent that Collins identifies any genuine inconsistencies in

Detective Morenberg's or Chadwick's accounts, nothing Collins puts forth shows

that the information they conveyed to the prosecutors was knowingly false.

Summary judgment, therefore, was proper as to Collins' respective malicious

prosecution claims against Detective Morenberg and Chadwick.

3. Municipality Liability. Collins' sole claim against the City of Colton is a

municipal liability § 1983 claim based on the policies that led to his averred

4 17-55634 malicious prosecution by Detective Morenberg. Pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc.

Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), municipalities may be held liable

under § 1983 when "a policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a

moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights." Dougherty v. City of

Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). As a

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

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Szajer v. City of Los Angeles
632 F.3d 607 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Dougherty v. City of Covina
654 F.3d 892 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Carlo Scott Bagley
772 F.2d 482 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Nile Smith
790 F.2d 789 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Alberto Pinela-Hernandez
262 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Hosvaldo Lopez
482 F.3d 1067 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
863 P.2d 795 (California Supreme Court, 1993)
Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District
729 P.2d 743 (California Supreme Court, 1987)
John v. City of El Monte
515 F.3d 936 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Beck v. City of Upland
527 F.3d 853 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Hughes v. Pair
209 P.3d 963 (California Supreme Court, 2009)
Newman v. County of Orange
457 F.3d 991 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Smiddy v. Varney
665 F.2d 261 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ronald Collins v. City of Colton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-collins-v-city-of-colton-ca9-2018.