Acevedo v. City of Farmersville
| Decision Date | 09 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-cv-01747-LJO-SAB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | LUIS ACEVEDO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FARMERSVILLE, a governmental entity; Unknown CITY OF FARMERSVILLE POLICE OFFICERS named herein as DOES 1-50; and ROES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants. |
Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Given the shortage of district judges and staff, this Court addresses only the arguments, evidence, and matters necessary to reach the decision in this order. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the offices of United States Senators Feinstein and Harris to address this Court's inability to accommodate the parties and this action. The parties are required to reconsider consent to conduct all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases.
Civil trials set before Chief Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Chief Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. Moreover, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the Nation to serve as visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge from inside or outside the Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff Luis Acevedo brings this action against Defendants City of Farmersville, Unknown City of Farmersville Police Officers named as Does 1-50, and Roes 1-50. This action arises out of Plaintiff's encounter with the Doe/Roe Defendants. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") and state law. Defendants move to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND OTHERWISE DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff is a resident of Farmersville, California. ECF No. 1 ¶ 13. On or about April 16, 2018, Plaintiff pleads that he went to the Farmersville police station to report that his live-in girlfriend had struck him at his Farmersville residence. Id. ¶ 14. Farmersville officers allegedly advised Plaintiff to proceed to a friend's house near his residence and await further contact from the City of Farmersville police department. Id. A short time later, Plaintiff claims Farmersville officers arrived and advised Plaintiff that he was being detained, despite his status as the reporting party and victim. Id. Plaintiff pleads that after he was informed that he was being detained, a Farmersville officer without need or provocation, executed a swift and highly forceful kick to Plaintiff's legs, toppling Plaintiff, and thereby causing a severe fracture in Plaintiff's left leg, related problems in Plaintiff's right leg, and subsequently, internal injuries. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff claims that at no time did Farmersville or its officers provide any medical treatment to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 16. Defendants allegedly forced Plaintiff to walk despite Plaintiff informing them that he had suffered a severe injury. Id. Plaintiff pleads that, after causing the severefracture to Plaintiff's left leg, Plaintiff was taken to the Bob Wiley Detention Facility run by the Tulare County Sheriff's Office. Id. ¶ 17. Defendants allegedly did not inform or request that Plaintiff be provided medical treatment at the Sheriff's infirmary. Id.
In October 2018, Plaintiff submitted a timely tort claim to Defendants. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff pleads that his counsel only received a letter from Defendants' insurer stating the insurer would investigate. Id. The claim was subsequently deemed denied by operation of law. Id.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 27, 2018 in this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings claims against the City of Farmersville, Unknown City of Farmersville Police Officers, named as Does 1-50, and other governmental entities or persons allegedly responsible for Plaintiff's injuries, named as Roes 1-50. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3-4, 6. Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action: (1) assault, against all Defendants; (2) battery, against all Defendants; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), against all Defendants; (4) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful assault and battery in violation of the Fourth Amendment, against all Defendants; (5) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under a theory of Monell liability for unlawful assault and battery in violation of the Fourth Amendment, against all Defendants; (6) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (the "Bane Act"), against all Defendants; (7) violation of the Unruh Act, against all Defendants; (8) negligent hiring and supervision, against Defendant City of Farmersville; (9) negligent training, against Defendant City of Farmersville. Defendants filed this motion to dismiss on February 19, 2019. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff opposed the motion. ECF No. 8. Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 9. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court determined that this matter was suitable for decision on the papers and took it under submission on March 15, 2019. ECF No. 10.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings. Dismissal of an action under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where there is either a "lack of acognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the pleading party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The inquiry is generally limited to the allegations made in the complaint. Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).
Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff "can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged[.]" Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). In practice, "a complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562. In other words, the complaint must describe the alleged misconduct in enough detail to lay the foundation for an identified legal claim.
"Dismissal without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). To the extent that the pleadings can be cured by the allegation of additional facts, the Court will afford the plaintiff leave to amend. Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action on the grounds that: (1) punitive damages claims against the City of Farmersville are barred; (2) Plaintiff failed to plead with sufficient particularity his assault and battery claims; (3) Plaintiff failed to plead with sufficient particularity his IIED claim; (4) Plaintiff failed to plead with sufficient particularity his § 1983 claims; (5) Plaintiff's state law claims, excluding the assault and battery claims, should be dismissed for failure to follow the California Tort Claims Act; (6) Plaintiff's state law negligent hiring, supervision, and training claims fail to state a claim. Plaintiff opposes some of Defendants' arguments, and otherwise fails to address the others.1
Plaintiff's first, second, third, and fourth claims, as well as Plaintiff's prayer for relief, seek punitive damages. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages must be dismissed. Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial