Fabricius v. Tulare Cnty., Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-LJO-EPG

• Decision Date: 15 March 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-LJO-EPG
• Parties: WILLIAM FABRICIUS, Plaintiff, v. TULARE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

WILLIAM FABRICIUS, Plaintiff,
v.
TULARE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-LJO-EPG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 15, 2018

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

(ECF No. 78, 88)

I. INTRODUCTION

William Fabricius ("Plaintiff" or "William"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action against numerous defendants alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with the seizure of twenty-five dogs.¹ This action is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("3AC"). Plaintiff summarizes his claims as follows:

This is a complaint on a series of events that is based on William's dog takings from 27Apr2013 and 22Oct2013, Warrant application on 21Oct2013, series of animal control hearings from 24Nov2013 to 18Mar2014, series of inadequate training of workers from 27April2013 to current date.

Page 2

This complaint mainly involves Due Process-no probable cause issues spanning 27April2013 to current date. Along with these core claims are subsequent claims of unlawful arrest, unreasonable force during arrest, multiple due process issues regarding having no warrant without probable cause, warrant without probable cause, application of a warrant without probable cause, multiple animal control hearings without due process jurisdiction, multiple Superior Court hearings without due process jurisdiction ending in euthanization [sic] of William's animals and inadequate supervisions and training of Patronage workers in their personal and Official Capacities. Also discussed will be the lack of burden of proof to establish jurisdiction and accusation of operation of a commercial business occupation.

Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18 (ECF No. 75).

Now before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks standing and that the 3AC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (ECF Nos. 78, 88).

For the reasons detailed below, Defendants' motions should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 24, 2015, William Fabricius, through his attorney, Christine Louise Garcia,² filed the original complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1). On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 6, 8). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("1AC") on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 17).

On July 5, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 34). Defendants argued, among other things, that the Court should dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which provides that review of state court decisions may be conducted only by the United States Supreme Court, because the issues were already litigated in state court.

The Court held a motion hearing on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 50). The Court took

Page 3

judicial notice of and examined the extensive record in which Plaintiff challenged the seizure of his dogs, including through administrative hearings, an appeal from an administrative determination, and an action in Tulare County Superior Court. It appeared that an appeal had been granted in Plaintiff's favor, and that Plaintiff was permitted to retrieve his dogs so long as he complied with health and safety codes. It also appeared that the Tulare County Superior Court case covering issues presented in this action was still pending.

On December 1, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 58.) The Court concluded that, although there were facts suggesting that Plaintiff litigated similar issues in state court, the 1AC was too disorganized and vague to determine whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine eliminated the Court's jurisdiction.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("2AC"). (ECF No. 71). The 2AC was 59 pages long, and appeared to have 13 causes of action, almost all of which asserted violations of the criminal code. The Court screened the 2AC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and on June 19, 2017, dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 74). The Court found that the 2AC violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 as it was not clear exactly who violated what right and why. The Court granted Plaintiff one more opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Court directed Plaintiff to limit his third amended complaint to 20 pages total, summarize the facts about the arrest and seizure of the dogs, list each claim against each person, state what each person did that violated Plaintiff's legal rights, and state what relief Plaintiff requests. The Court also provided legal standards that Plaintiff could consider in drafting a third amended complaint.

On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 75). The 3AC listed several new Defendants. Finding that it complied with the technical requirements of the Court's prior order, the Court declined to screen the 3AC, and directed Plaintiff to serve any new Defendants listed in the 3AC with process. (ECF No. 76). The Court also directed Defendants to file a responsive pleading.

On September 1, 2017, and September 29, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the 3AC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 78, 88). On September 28, 2017,

Page 4

Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 85). On October 6, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 89).

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff submitted summonses for 18 new defendants to be served with the 3AC, bringing the total number of defendants to 34.

On December 7, 2017, the newly served Defendants filed a notice of joinder in the motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 100), with the exception of Kathleen Marie Bales-Lange, Esq., Lisa Marie Tennenbaum, Esq., Tulare County Sheriff Officer Zendajas, Ralph Mario Agnello, Esq., Thomas Elliott Hornburg, Esq., Valeriano Saucedo, and Cecile F. Shaffer, DVM, who were not served with process.

III. PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's 3AC totals twenty pages. It names over thirty defendants, contains thirteen enumerated claims, and asserts additional claims within each enumerated claim.

Claims I, II, and III concern events that occurred on April 27, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that on April 27, 2013, officers unlawfully seized eight of his dogs. Plaintiff asserts that Tulare County Animal Control Officer Jeffrey Lewis ("Lewis") and Tulare County Sheriff Officers Bradley McLean ("McLean") and Lance Heiden ("Heiden") trespassed onto his property without a valid warrant supported by a competent first-hand eyewitness, arrested him without probable cause, and used excessive force against him. Plaintiff heard Animal Control Officer Grenseman ("Grenseman") state over the phone that he has taken and euthanized thousands of dogs without any warrants in Tulare County. Plaintiff also asserts that no warrant was returned to Superior Court regarding the seizure of his animals on April 27, 2013.

Plaintiff further asserts:

Lewis left spent unauthorized FDA drug tranquilizer cartridges on William's land.
William witnessed Lewis shoot a tranquilizer gun, without clear visibility, with FDA controlled substances to tranquilize William's animals. Then Lewis dragged the tranquilized animals by a catch noose from underneath William's protective porch. Lewis then lifted the animals by the catch noose inhumanly up and over a 4 foot fence. Lewis dragged them on the ground. Then Lewis brutally threw them into his animal control truck. William witnessed this heartbreaking terrible act eight times. William was helpless to do anything as William was tightly handcuffed. Lewis

Page 5

was obviously inadequately trained on search warrants and proper handling of drugged and tranquilized animals by the use of FDA controlled drugs.

Plaintiff also alleges that the officers used unreasonable force. Plaintiff asserts that McLean demanded that he produce identification on his own property. McLean asked if Plaintiff had anything that could poke, stab, or cut the Officer. Plaintiff responded in the negative, and McLean immediately twisted Plaintiff's right wrist to the middle of his back, causing him pain. McLean placed Plaintiff in tight, restrictive, and painful handcuffs, and confined Plaintiff to the front of McLean's cruiser for over one hour in the hot sun, which exacerbated and contributed to Plaintiff's hypertension medical condition. Plaintiff complained to McLean that the handcuffs were too tight and restricted his blood flow. McLean declined to adjust the handcuffs. Plaintiff suffered a shoulder injury from the handcuffs, and developed bronchitis. Plaintiff notified Heiden of Plaintiff's medical condition. Heiden and McLean did not request medical treatment for Plaintiff. After one hour, Heiden loosened the handcuffs. Plaintiff further asserts, "McLean did not have reasonable articulated suspicion (RAS) of what crime Plaintiff was potentially accused of requiring handcuffing and what crime justified William producing identification on his land."

Plaintiff further alleges that the officers arrested him unlawfully. Plaintiff asserts that McLean, Heiden, and Lewis arrested him pursuant to California Penal Code § 148(a) for resisting arrest and for not having identification without a warrant or probable cause. Plaintiff also asserts that when McLean and Heiden arrested him, they failed to inform him of his Miranda rights. Plaintiff further states:

McLean and Heiden jointly authored Tulare County Sheriff's report number 13-5348 for resisting arrest pursuant to PC§148(a). Tulare County Sheriff did not provide evidence of report 13-5348 to William. In the Sheriff report13-5348 both McLean and Heiden stated that William had resisted arrest. McLean and

...