Avalos v. Baca

• Decision Date: 24 August 2007
• Docket Number: No. CV 05-07602 DDP SHX.,CV 05-07602 DDP SHX.
• Parties: J. AVALOS, individually and as a representative of the class defined hereinbelow, Plaintiff, v. Leroy BACA, Larry Waldie, Shaun Mathers, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

517 F.Supp.2d 1156

J. AVALOS, individually and as a representative of the class defined hereinbelow, Plaintiff, v. Leroy BACA, Larry Waldie, Shaun Mathers, Defendants.

No. CV 05-07602 DDP SHX.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

August 24, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edward F. Figaredo, Edward F. Figaredo Law Offices, El Monte, CA, Joseph Reichmann, Jr., Marion R. Yagman, Stephen Yagman, Yagman Yagman & Reichmann, Venice, CA, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Baum, Bryan M. Sullivan, Louis R. Miller, Christensen Glaser Fink Jacobs Weil & Shapiro, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel Lee, Justin W. Clark, Paul B. Beach, Franscell Strickland Roberts and Lawrence, Glendale, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

This motion comes before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties and upon hearing oral argument, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and adopts the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

Juan Avalos ("plaintiff"), as a representative of a putative class, brings this action against Sheriff Leroy Baca, Undersheriff Larry Waldie, and Lieutenant Shaun Mathers of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department ("defendants") alleging claims arising out of his 73-day over-detention in a Los Angeles County Jail facility. On June 22, 2004, plaintiff was arrested on an Orange County warrant for domestic abuse. Following his arrest, plaintiff was transported to Men's Central Jail ("MCJ"). However, the Orange County Sheriffs Department was never notified of plaintiffs arrest or presence in MCJ, and consequently never initiated any procedures to pick him up. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") had the responsibility to notify the Orange County Sheriffs Department of plaintiff's arrest and detention in MCJ.

On September 4, 2004, LASD realized plaintiff had been over-detained and was entitled to be released. Defendants contend plaintiff was allowed to change into his personal clothes and was approached by Sergeant James Wilson, a member of LASD's Risk Management Bureau. (Wilson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendants also contend that after Sergeant Wilson, who was wearing civilian clothing and was not carrying a weapon, realized that plaintiff did not speak English, enlisted a bilingual officer, Deputy Yvonne Zarate, to translate. (Wilson Decl. ¶¶ 6-7) Defendants contend that Sgt. Wilson spoke with plaintiff through Deputy Zarate, and discovered that plaintiff earned $500 per week in his janitorial job prior to his incarceration. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants assert that based upon this information, Sgt. Wilson proposed that plaintiff release all claims he had against LASD as a result of his over-detention in exchange for $500. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed, signed the paperwork, and was released from custody. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that he was given his personal clothes and brought into a room with one officer. (Avalos Dep. 39:1-5, 41:11-13.) Plaintiff also contends that he was not aware of what he was signing, but that he believed the papers related to his release from prison. (Avalos Dep. 41:6-7.) Plaintiff claims that he believed that he was being released because a friend had paid his bail. (Avalos Dep. 32:2-5.) Plaintiff denies that there was a translator present when he signed the waiver, (Avalos Dep. 41:11-13.), and denies telling the officer how much he made per week prior to his incarceration. (Avalos Dep. 45:20-23.)

Following his release, on September 9, 2004, two LASD officers visited plaintiff at his home to deliver his settlement payment. They arrived in an unmarked vehicle and wore civilian clothes. Defendants contend one of the officers translated a "Release and Settlement Agreement" for plaintiff to sign, and explained the material terms to plaintiff. (Lam Decl. ¶ 5.) Conversely, plaintiff contends that the officers called his house from the street and that his daughter answered the phone. (Avalos Dep. 47:18-25.) Plaintiff further contends that he went outside alone to speak with them, and that they did not translate the release for him. (Avalos Dep. 53:2-18.)

On April 3, 2006, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against defendants in their individual and official capacities. The FAC alleges four causes of action. In Count I, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by causing him to be over-detained and by causing plaintiff to involuntarily waive his civil rights claim against defendants. (FAC ¶ 20.) In Count II, plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to cause plaintiff's over-detention and involuntary waiver of over-detention claim. (FAC ¶¶ 21-23.) In Count HI, plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a)-(c). (FAC ¶¶ 24-52.) In Count IV, plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to commit violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b)-(d). (FAC ¶¶ 53-54).

Plaintiff also alleges that he represents a class of more than 100 members who share the following characteristics: (1) they were over-detained in the L.A. County Jail system; (2) their over-detentions were recognized by LASD officials; and (3) they were fraudulently, oppressively, extortionately, or with threats were duped into compromising their monetary claims for sums far less than those claims were worth.¹

On September 1, 2006, plaintiff moved for summary adjudication on two issues. On October 16, 2006, the Court granted summary adjudication on each issue and determined that plaintiff was over-detained, and that defendants were potentially liable under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On March 1, 2007, defendants filed this motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, summary adjudication as to all plaintiff's causes of action.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party has no burden, however, to negate or disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The moving party need only point out to the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Id.

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)). To carry this burden, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence ... will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Evidence that "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative," is not sufficient to avoid summary judgment. Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Summary judgment cannot be granted where a genuine dispute exists as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A "material" fact is one which might affect the outcome of the case under the applicable law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A dispute about a material fact is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Moreover, "credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge [when] he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Id; see Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir.2004).

B. Monell Standard

Under § 1983 a public entity defendant cannot be held liable for a § 1983 violation caused by an individual employee's actions under a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). In order to be liable, the defendant must act as a "lawmaker[] or ... [one] whose edicts may fairly be said to represent official policy." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Under Monell, municipal liability must be based upon enforcement of a municipal policy or custom that causes the deprivation of a plaintiffs federal right, and not upon the municipality's mere employment of a constitutional tortfeasor. Id. To maintain a § 1983 claim against a public entity defendant, or supervisors not personally involved in the alleged violation, a plaintiff must allege that his or her constitutional injury resulted from a policy, practice or custom of the local entity. Id.

There are three ways to meet the policy, practice, or custom requirement for municipal liability under § 1983:(1) the plaintiff may prove that a public entity employee committed the alleged constitutional violation pursuant to a formal policy or a longstanding practice or custom, which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity; (2) the plaintiff may establish that the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with "final policymaking authority" and that the challenged action itself thus constituted an act of official government policy; or (3) ...