Williams v. Apache Junction, City of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01440
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Karl Williams, No. CV-22-01440-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Apache Junction, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendants City of Apache Junction and Craig Martin’s Partial 16 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) Defendant David 17 James joins in the Motion. (Doc. 15.) The Motion is fully briefed, and the Court rules as 18 follows: 19 1. Mr. Williams asserts a negligent training and supervision claim (Count 1) 20 and a false arrest and imprisonment claim (Count 2) against the City of Apache Junction. 21 But Mr. Williams does not assert any well-pleaded facts to support either of these claims. 22 Under Arizona law, negligent training and supervision claims against employers require a 23 showing that “the employer knew or should have known that the employee was not 24 competent to preform the assigned task.” Sloan v. United States, 2016 WL 3548766, at *2 25 (D. Ariz. June 30, 2016). Mr. Williams simply recites boilerplate elements-of-the-offense- 26 style allegations. As much as the Second Amended Complaint alleges after-the-fact actions 27 taken by the City of Apache Junction (i.e., deleting the incident recording from Mr. 28 Williams’ smartphone, ¶ 16), those allegations do not support the antecedent knowledge 1 requirement. While this lack of detail may suffice for state court pleading, it falls far short 2 of the standards established in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bell Atl. 3 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Mr. Williams has had previous opportunities 4 to amend his pleading to correct these identified deficiencies. It appears to the Court that 5 Mr. Williams cannot further amend his complaint to state well-pleaded claims against the 6 City of Apache Junction for negligence and false arrest and imprisonment. Count 1 and 7 Count 2, as it applies to the City of Apache Junction, will be dismissed with prejudice. 8 2. Defendants Craig Martin and David James assert qualified immunity under 9 federal law and Arizona common law. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather 10 than a mere defense to liability.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237 (2009). The 11 immunity “shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads 12 facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that 13 the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Shooter v. 14 Arizona, 4 F.4th 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ascroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 15 (2011)). Under Arizona common law, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified 16 immunity for exercising discretionary functions. Chamberlain v. Mathis, 151 Ariz. 551, 17 557 (1986). “[A]n officer performing a discretionary act within the scope of his public 18 duties may be liable only if grossly negligent.” Merritt v. Arizona, 425 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 19 1231 (D. Ariz. 2019). 20 Whether qualified immunity applies should be decided at the earliest point in the 21 legal proceedings. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. On a motion to dismiss, however, the well- 22 pleaded complaint allegations must be taken as true. Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 32 23 F.4th 1218, 1220 (9th Cir. 2022). Reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non- 24 movant’s favor. Id. Mr. Williams alleges that he tried to record a traffic stop involving the 25 defendant City of Apache Junction police officers and a third party. One of the officers 26 noticed Mr. Williams recording with his smartphone. The three officers turned their 27 attention to Mr. Williams, shouted at him, physically interacted with him, and confiscated 28 his smartphone. The Second Amended Complaint further describes the incident as 1 Defendant James “grabbing [him] by the neck.” (Doc. 13 ¶ 15.) It alleges that “Mr. 2 Williams was later thrown to the ground by Officers Martin and Gearhart.” (Id.) The 3 smartphone video was allegedly deleted by unidentified City of Apache Junction 4 personnel, but the Second Amended Complaint asserts that police body camera footage 5 and nearby security surveillance footage corroborates Mr. Williams’ story. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18- 6 19.) 7 Under Arizona common law qualified immunity, the Court finds that the allegations 8 contained in Mr. Williams’ Second Amended Complaint sufficiently allege that the officer 9 defendants acted with at least gross negligence. The allegations also sufficiently plead that 10 he was deprived of his federal constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process, 11 and his freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force, and false arrest. 12 The Court further finds that Mr. Williams’ response to the Motion to Dismiss satisfies, at 13 least at this early stage, his burden to show that the law was clearly established at the time 14 of the incident. For these reasons, the Motion to Dismiss for qualified immunity will be 15 denied without prejudice. 16 3. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court evaluates the complaint based on 17 the well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff’s favor. Shields, 18 32 F.4th at 1220. For the same reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Second 19 Amended Complaint states sufficient well-pleaded factual allegations against Defendants 20 Martin and Craig to support the claims against them for false arrest and false imprisonment, 21 as well as well as the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights violations claim. Insofar as the Motion 22 argues that the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim, it will be denied. 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED: 3 1. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted in part and denied in part. All 4|| claims against the City of Apache Junction are dismissed, with prejudice. 5 2. The Motion is denied in all other respects. 6 3. The parties request oral argument. The Court finds that oral argument will 7|| not significantly aid in the decisional process, and it is therefore denied. 8 4. A Rule 16 conference will be set by separate order. 9 Dated this 13th day of February, 2023. 10 Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-