Castro v. City of Hanford, CV-F-05-1405 LJO DLB.

• Decision Date: 03 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. CV-F-05-1405 LJO DLB.,CV-F-05-1405 LJO DLB.
• Citation: 546 F.Supp.2d 822
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: Manuel Hernandez CASTRO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HANFORD, County of Kings, Defendants.

546 F.Supp.2d 822

Manuel Hernandez CASTRO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HANFORD, County of Kings, Defendants.

No. CV-F-05-1405 LJO DLB.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

March 3, 2008.

H. Ronald Sawl, John R. Malmo, Sawl and Netzer, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff.

Justus C. Spillner, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth Lip, James J. Arendt, James Darvin Weakley, Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KINGS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

On February 1, 2008, defendant County of Kings filed a notice of motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. On February 15, 2008, plaintiff Manuel Hernandez Castro filed-his opposition to the motion. Defendant County filed its reply brief on February 25, 2008. The hearing set for March 3, 2008 was vacated and the matter was hereby submitted on the pleadings. See Local Rule 78-230(h). Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves plaintiffs claims for unconstitutional arrest and detention made on the basis of mistaken identity. On November 24, 2004, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Manuel Hernandez Castro went to his brother's house located at 1387 Echo Lane in Hanford, California. When Manuel tried to enter the garage, the house alarm went off.

Officers Dale Williams and Gabriel Jimenez of the Hanford Police Department were dispatched to 1387 Echo Lane in Hanford, California, to respond to a report of a burglar alarm sounding at that location. During their initial contact with Plaintiff, the officers asked Plaintiff to identify himself. Plaintiff identified himself by name and provided his date of birth. He showed them a valid Oregon driver's license and an expired California driver's license, showing his name as Manuel Hernandez Castro.

Using his police radio, Officer Jimenez contacted his dispatch center and requested that a warrant check be performed based on the identifying information supplied by the plaintiff. In response to the requested warrant check, the dispatch center advised Officer Jimenez that plaintiffs information appeared to match the subject of at least one outstanding, no-bail arrest warrant in Sacramento County. Officer Williams also heard this information on his own radio. Officer Jimenez informed plaintiff of what he had been told by the dispatcher regarding the warrant check. Plaintiff denied having any outstanding warrants.

One of the officers expressed a belief that Mr. Castro was the Manuel Hernandez Patino. Mr. Castro told the officer that he was mistaken. The Sacramento Sheriffs Department advised the King's County Sheriffs Department that Manuel Hernandez Patino was five feet, three inches tall; and weighed 170 pounds. Mr. Castro is five feet, six inches tall, and weighs 200 pounds.

The officers arrested Mr. Castro, handcuffed him and transported him to Kings County Jail. One of the officers told Mr. Castro that when they got to the Kings County Jail, they would take his fingerprints and if he was not Manuel Hernandez Patino, he would be released. Mr. Casto's fingerprints were not checked by the Hanford Police Department while he was in their custody. His finger prints were not checked by the County of Kings while housed in the jail. Mr. Castro was transferred to the Sacramento County Sheriffs station on November 30, 2004. Soon after arriving, Mr. Castro's fingerprints were taken and compared with those belonging to Manuel Hernandez Patino. It was determined that Mr. Castro was not the subject of the warrant. He was released that same evening. He was incarcerated for seven (7) days.

Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief:

1. First Claim — Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

2. Second Claim — False Arrest and False Imprisonment

3. Third Claim — Negligence

4. Fourth Claim — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

5. Fifth Claim — Violation of Art. 1, § 7(a) and 13 of the California Constitution

6. Sixth Claim — Violation of Due Process of the United States Constitution.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that he was wrongly arrested despite substantial discrepancies in the arrest warrant description of the suspect and unlawfully detained when the County failed to conduct a "live scan" evaluation as to his identity.

A. Summary Judgment Standard

On summary judgment, a court must decide whether there is a "genuine issue as to any material fact." F.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); Jung v. FMC Corp., 755 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1985); Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.1984). The criteria of "genuineness" and "materiality" are distinct requirements. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The requirement that an issue be "genuine" relates to the quantum of evidence the plaintiff must produce to defeat the defendant's summary judgment motion. There must be sufficient evidence "that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

"As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial," and in such circumstances, summary judgment should be granted "so long as whatever is before the ... court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the material on file that it believes demonstrates the absence of any genuine issues of material fact," the burden of production shifts and the nonmoving party must set forth "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting F.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. The opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.... Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citations omitted). The opposing party's evidence is to be believed and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

B. Plaintiff's Concession in his Opposition Brief

In plaintiffs opposition brief (Doc. 53) he concedes summary adjudication is proper on certain claims:

"Plaintiff concedes that summary adjudication of plaintiffs claims for Federal Civil Rights violations, California Constitutional violations, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and those based on the failure to provide medical needs is appropriate." (Doc. 53, Opposition Brief, p. 2:21-23.)

Plaintiff concedes that the only claims that should remain are the Second Claim for False Arrest and False Imprisonment and the Third Claim for Negligence.

Even with the explicit concession in his opposition, plaintiff argues two points related to the alleged federal constitutional violations. Plaintiff states that "because of the existence of a readily available alternative to the incarceration of the wrong person, i.e., the `live scan' technology, the incarceration of plaintiff was a violation of his Constitutional rights." (Doc. 53, Opposition p. 4:4-6.) Plaintiff also states that "plaintiff was deprived of his liberty without due process of law." (Doc. 53, Opposition p. 4.)

This Court has previously adjudicated the federal claims in a similar summary judgment motion brought by co-defendant City of Hanford. (See Doc. 45.) Whether the County is liable for constitutional violations turns on the standards established in the seminal case of Monell v. Department of Social Services.

A local government unit may not be held liable for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1480 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899, 112 S.Ct. 275, 116 L.Ed.2d 227 (1991); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.1989). "[A] local government may not be sued for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those who edicts or actions may fairly be said to represent official policy, includes the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Monell, at 98 S.Ct. at 2038. Thus, the County cannot be liable for the conduct of the jailer solely on the basis of respondeat...