Bramhall v. Cyprus Credit Union, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-cv-00477-RJS-DAO |
| Parties | EARLE E. BRAMHALL, Plaintiff, v. CYPRUS CREDIT UNION, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case arises out of the five-year state court pretrial incarceration of Plaintiff Earle E. Bramhall, following criminal charges filed against him in Salt Lake County, Utah for making a terroristic threat for the criminal purpose of bank robbery. Bramhall eventually stood trial and was acquitted by a jury. He now brings this action against Defendants Cyprus Credit Union and Brooke Bennion (collectively, Cyprus Defendants); and the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Simarjit S Gill, Robert N. Parrish, Melanie M. Serassio, Steven C Gibbons, Nathanial J. Sanders, Nathan J. Evershed, Chou Chou Collins, Thomas V. Lopresto II, Craig Stanger, and Jared W Rasband (collectively, County Defendants). After the Cyprus and County Defendants moved to dismiss his original Complaint, Bramhall filed his Amended Complaint asserting claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C § 1985, as well as claims for negligent hiring and defamation.
The Cyprus Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Bramhall's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.[1] The County Defendants filed a separate Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.[2]Bramhall opposed both motions.[3]
Acting pursuant to a referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg took up the motions and, on January 25, 2021, issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended the undersigned grant the Defendants' motions and dismiss Bramhall's Amended Complaint with prejudice.[4] Bramhall timely filed an Objection.[5] For the reasons explained below, Bramhall's Objection is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. The Cyprus Defendants' Motion to Dismiss[6] is GRANTED, and the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss[7] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND[8]
In July 2008, Bramhall made a business-related international call in a telephone booth outside of Cyprus Credit Union in Utah.[9] Unfortunately for Bramhall, the booth was under police surveillance because someone else using it earlier that day called Cyprus Credit Union and made terroristic threats “for the criminal purpose of a bank robbery[.]”[10] Defendant Bennion, who was an employee of Cyprus Credit Union at the time, identified Bramhall's voice to the police as the one who made the terroristic threat earlier in the day.[11] Bramhall was arrested and remained incarcerated awaiting trial for five years.[12]
During his pre-trial incarceration, Bramhall repeatedly requested release or trial.[13]Instead of setting a date for trial, Bramhall alleges various deputy district attorneys employed by Salt Lake County would offer him plea agreements.[14] When he refused to sign those agreements, the deputy district attorneys would allegedly request a “state mental evaluation” from the court to determine his fitness for trial.[15] Once he was deemed fit for trial, the cycle would repeat itself with a deputy district attorney again offering a plea agreement instead of setting a trial date as Bramhall requested. Bramhall alleges this cycle occurred approximately a dozen times over his five-year pretrial incarceration.[16] Bramhall finally stood trial on July 15, 2017, and was acquitted by a state court jury.[17]
Bramhall alleges District Attorney Gill was involved in this pretrial cycle of detainment by either “developing the unconstitutional policy . . . of keeping individuals charged with a crime incarcerated as long as possible, and in violation of speedy trial rights, so as to exert pressure on those individuals to accept plea agreements; or he was grossly negligent in allowing such policy to develop while those deputies were under his supervision.”[18] On June 8, 2018, Bramhall filed in this court a different civil rights action, Bramhall I, against the same Cyprus Defendants and prosecutors named in this action, as well as other defendants associated with the West Valley City Police Department.[19] In that case, Bramhall alleged the County Defendants committed prosecutorial misconduct, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, violated his Fifth Amendment rights by failing to indict him before a grand jury, conspired to prosecute him despite a lack of evidence, attempted to coerce him into pleading guilty, denied his right to a speedy trial, improperly subjected him to numerous competency evaluations, and improperly allowed a witness to remain in the courtroom during a preliminary hearing.[20] As to the Cyprus Defendants, Bramhall brought claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and a claim of perjury against Defendant Bennion.[21]
After Bramhall voluntarily dismissed the West Valley City Police Department Defendants, the court in Bramhall I adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to dismiss each claim and grant the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).[22] On May 2, 2019, the court clarified that Bramhall's claims were dismissed without prejudice and notified him that he “may still pursue his claims in an appropriate manner if he is able to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief.”[23]However, in the same Order, the court denied Bramhall's Motion to Amend his Complaint because it concluded “allowing [Bramhall] to file his proposed Amended Complaint would be futile[.]”[24] Bramhall appealed that Order dismissing his claims to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.[25] On March 26, 2020, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction after concluding the District Court Judge's Order was not final.[26]
Rather than seek leave to file an amended complaint in Bramhall I, on July 10, 2019, Bramhall filed the instant action against the same Cyprus Defendants and County Defendants.[27]Each group of Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss in August of 2019.[28] Soon thereafter, on September 9, 2019, Bramhall filed the governing Amended Complaint.[29] In it, Bramhall brings three causes of action against the Cyprus Defendants for: (1) violating 42 U.S.C. § 1985, (2) negligent hiring, and (3) defamation.[30] Bramhall also brings two causes of action against the County Defendants, for violating: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[31]
On August 17, 2020, the Cyprus Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.[32] They first argue Bramhall's instant action is precluded by Bramhall I.[33] Next, the Cyprus Defendants contend the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under any of the three causes of action asserted against them.[34] The County Defendants also moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing it fails to state a claim against them under either 42 U.S.C. § 1985 or § 1983.[35]
On January 25, 2021, Judge Oberg issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal with prejudice of Bramhall's claims against both the Cyprus and County Defendants.[36]Judge Oberg first concluded that this action is not precluded by Bramhall I because that case did not result in a final judgment on the merits or “actually litigate[]” the issues presented in this action.[37] Turning to the other arguments presented, Judge Oberg concluded Bramhall failed to state a claim against the Cyprus Defendants for any of the three claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint.[38] Judge Oberg concluded Bramhall's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 failed because Bramhall did not “allege any intent to deprive him of equal protection of the laws due to class-based animus.”[39] Judge Oberg next concluded Bramhall's claim for negligent hiring must be dismissed in part because he failed to allege “any reason why Cyprus knew or should have known Ms. Bennion would offer false testimony[.]”[40] Last, Judge Oberg recommended dismissing Bramhall's claim for defamation against the Cyprus Defendants because the alleged statements made by Bennion are protected by the judicial proceedings privilege.[41]
As to the County Defendants, Judge Oberg concluded Bramhall failed to state a claim under either 42 U.S.C. § 1985 or § 1983.[42] As with Bramhall's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against the Cyprus Defendants, Judge Oberg recommended dismissal because the Amended Complaint lacked any allegations of the County Defendants' intent to deprive him of equal protection based on class-based discrimination.[43] Finally, Judge Oberg concluded Bramhall's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed against the County Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. She concluded the § 1983 claim must be dismissed against the County Defendants in their individual capacities for two reasons: (1) the allegations in the Amended Complaint are not sufficiently specific, and (2) the actions alleged are barred by prosecutorial immunity.[44] Judge Oberg concluded Bramhall's § 1983 claim must be dismissed against the County Defendants in their official capacities because he failed to allege any “municipal policy or custom” as required to state a claim for county liability.[45]
On February 5, 2021, Bramhall timely objected to each conclusion in the Report and Recommendation, except those regarding preclusion and municipal liability under § 1983.[46] In his Objection, Bramhall also seemingly accuses Judge Oberg of judicial misconduct. These accusations stem from...
To continue reading
Request your trial