Dean v. Fluty

• Decision Date: 02 February 2017
• Docket Number: 2:16–cv–00979–SVW–FFM
• Citation: 231 F.Supp.3d 513
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Jerome DEAN v. Joshua FLUTY; Charlie Beck ; City of Los Angeles, Does 1–10

231 F.Supp.3d 513

Jerome DEAN

v.Joshua FLUTY; Charlie Beck ; City of Los Angeles, Does 1–10

2:16–cv–00979–SVW–FFM

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Filed February 2, 2017

Ian Michael Wallach, The Law Offices of Ian Wallach PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Jerome Dean.

Elizabeth Anne Mitchell, Surekha A. Pessis, Los Angeles City Attorneys Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Joshua Fluty; Charlie Beck; City of Los Angeles, Does 1–10.

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [72].

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jerome Dean brings this action against Officer Joshua Fluty of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"); Charlie Beck, Chief of Police of the LAPD; and the City of Los Angeles (collectively, "the Defendants"). The claims involve an arrest of the Plaintiff made by Officer Fluty, which the Plaintiff alleges was a wrongful arrest that gives rise to causes of action against the Defendants. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 1) false arrest and malicious prosecution; 2) intentional use of unduly suggestive identification procedure; and 3) Monell liability for failure to tram, supervise, and discipline. See Complaint, Dkt. 1 ("Complaint"). The Plaintiff also alleges state law claims, including false arrest or imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, malicious prosecution (including perjury, fabrication of evidence, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence with malice pursuant to Cal Gov't Code § 820.21 ), and violation of Cal Civ. Code § 52.1.

The trial in this matter was originally scheduled for November 29, 2016. There Court held a pretrial conference on Monday, November 21, 2016, where the Court heard oral arguments regarding the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the First and Fourth Causes of Action (the claims for false arrest/imprisonment). Dkt. 23. Based on the briefings of the parties and the arguments at the oral hearing, it became clear to the Court that several legal issues that had not been addressed in pretrial motions prevented an effective trial from taking place. As a result, the Court ordered the Defendants to file a Motion for Summary Judgment addressing the Court's concerns. Dkt. 70.

Presently before the Court is that Motion for Summary Judgment brought by the Defendants. The Court asked the Defendants to address whether Officer Fluty is entitled to qualified immunity for his initial probable cause determination regarding the arrest of the Plaintiff and whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the identification procedure through which an informant later identified the Plaintiff. For the following reasons, the Court finds that as a matter of law probable cause existed at the time of the Plaintiff's original arrest, and at the very least Officer Fluty is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.¹

Additionally, the Court finds that the eyewitness identification of the Plaintiff further supported probable because there were sufficient indicia of reliability to protect the integrity of the identification. Therefore, the initial arrest was not unlawful, and the Defendants cannot be held liable for actions related to the arrest.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Only a small subset of the material facts in this case are disputed, as for the most part the parties agree on the important events that transpired. On January 19, 2015, Defendant Fluty was investigating allegations of drug sales at an 8704 Wadsworth address. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 72 ("MSJ"), 1. While performing surveillance on the Wadsworth residence. Officer Fluty observed a black male who was bald and had a long goatee exit the location of the Wadsworth address for approximately 10 minutes, then re-enter. Id. at 1–2. This person was later identified as the Plaintiff. Id. at 2. Several horns later. Officer Fluty used a non-confidential informant named Sandy Charles ("NCI") to perform a controlled drug buy. Id. The NCI had provided accurate and reliable information to law enforcement in the past. Id. When the NCI performed the controlled drug buy, she entered the Wadsworth residence and witnessed a negotiation for rock cocaine between a "hook," which is a person who brings new customers to narcotics dealers, and a narcotics dealer. Id. After performing the buy, the NCI reported back to Officer Fluty and described the seller of the rock cocaine as a "bald, black, male with a goatee," which she confirmed in a written statement. Id.

At this point, what happened next between the NCI and Officer Fluty is disputed by the parties. The Defendants contend that after the NCI gave Officer Fluty the description of the seller as a "bald, black, male with a goatee," he remembered the man he had seen earlier outside the same location and on the same day. Id. As a result, he clarified the description with the NCI and asked her if the seller was about 5 feet, 10 inches and 220 pounds, to which she agreed. Id. Then, he further clarified if the seller had a long goatee and demonstrated the length with his hand, to which the NCI also agreed. Id.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff disputes that the NCI ever gave Officer Fluty the description of the height and weight or the goatee length of the seller. Opposition, Dkt. 79 ("Opp."). 2–3. Instead, the NCI provided written statements that only contained the description of a "male, bald, black with a goatee." Id. at 2. The Plaintiff alleges that when Officer Fluty completed a sworn search warrant affidavit, he added the more detailed description himself based on his previous observation of the Plaintiff. Id. at 3. He also modified his statement with handwritten edits to reflect that the NCI gave the more detailed description, even though she had not. Id. The Plaintiff cites to testimony elicited during the criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff in which both Officer Fluty and the NCI both seem to suggest that the more specific description had not originated with the NCI. Affidavit of Ian Wallach, Dkt. 80 ("Wallach Aff."), ¶¶ 6–7, Exs. C, E.

Officer Fluty completed a search warrant application, and based on the attached affidavit, a judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court signed the warrant. MSJ at 2. The judge asked Officer Fluty to handwrite the description of the rock cocaine dealer on page 7 of the affidavit, which he did. Id.

The following day, on January 20, 2015, the NCI performed another buy at the same address, and informed Defendant Fluty that the "dealer from last night" (the seller at issue) was present at the 8704 Wadsworth address, although he was not the seller in the second transaction. Id.

The search warrant was subsequently served at the location and Plaintiff was not present, nor was anyone else fitting the NCFs description of a black bald male with a goatee. Id. at 2–3. Approximately two weeks later, on February 2, 2015, Defendant Fluty and his partner returned to the Wadsworth residence to conduct surveillance. Id. at 3. They saw the Plaintiff leaving the Wadsworth address with approximately $150 in cash in his hand. Id. Defendant Fluty approached the Plaintiff and searched him, and although he recovered no contraband, he did find $283 and a cell-phone. Id. Defendant Fluty then put Plaintiff in handcuffs, put him in a patrol car, and delivered him to the police Station, where he handcuffed him to a chair pending an identification. Id.

At the station, Detective Cortinas took a photograph of the Plaintiff and then made arrangements to meet with the NCI in order to show her the digital image. Id. The NCI positively identified the Plaintiff as the individual who sold her narcotics on January 19, 2015: this information was relayed to Officer Fluty by telephone. Id. The total amount of time from handcuffing to positive identification was approximately 25 minutes. Id. At this point, the Plaintiff was read his Miranda rights, and he declined to answer questions. Id.

On February 5, 2015, the District Attorney's Office filed a single count of sale of a controlled substance against the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff won a motion to suppress the arrest and identification procedures. Id. Additionally, Officer Fluty was prevented from testifying frilly about the circumstances of the origin of the descriptors, and the criminal charges were subsequently dismissed.² The Plaintiff subsequently brought the current action, contending that he was the victim of a wrongful arrest and numerous other violations related to the above events. Dkt. 1, Complaint.

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining a motion for summary judgment, all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," and material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, no genuine issue of fact exists "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

It is not the Court...