Galvan v. City of L. A.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. CV 14-00495 CAS (AJWx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | ROY GALVAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; MIGUEL TERRAZAS; DAVID NUNN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
On March 3, 2011, Roy Galvan was charged with the shooting murder of Joey Gutierrez.1 However, he was acquitted of all charges following a 2012 jury trial.2 On January 22, 2014, Roy Galvan sued the City of Los Angeles, David Nunn, Miguel Terrazas, Richard Arciniega, and various fictitious defendants, alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Galvan alleges claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution; failure to intervene; and Monell liability.3 He contends that there was no probable cause for arrest, and that defendants fabricated and failed to disclose key pieces of evidence that led to his arrest and continued prosecution.
On July 14, 2015 the parties stipulated to dismiss Arciniega; the court approved the parties' stipulation.4 On November 23, 2015 the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.5 Galvan opposes the motion.6
Defendants ask that the court take judicial notice of four documents related to the underlying criminal action, People v. Galvan, L.A. Superior Court No. BA381625-0: the (1) certified docket, (2) certified felony complaint, (3) transcript from the preliminary hearing, and (4) transcript from the Trombetta motion.7 Galvan asks that the court take judicial notice of two documents: (1) the Board of Rights Details, Civil Lawsuits, printout regarding the civil case Gipson v. Los Angeles Police Department, Case Number 00-cv-0712; and (2) the docket report from that case.
"The court can judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is: (1) generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." FED.R.EVID. 201(b). Court orders, pleadings, and other documents in related cases are appropriate subjects of judicial notice under Rule 201 because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to the court's docket, whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) (); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) ().
Accordingly, the court takes judicial notice of all four of defendants' requested documents, as well as Galvan's requested docket report from Case Number 00-cv-0712; it will not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts recited therein, however. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (); Wallis v. Centennial Ins. Co., Inc., 927 F.Supp.2d 909, 913-14 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (). The court declines to take judicial notice of the "Board of Rights" printout, as the court is not aware of, nor does the plaintiff cite, any legal basis for doing so.
This action stems from the investigation of the shooting murder of Joey Gutierrez, which occurred on January 28, 2011, at the intersection of 43rd Street and Main Street in the City of Los Angeles.9 Gutierrez was a member of the Hang Out Boys ("HOBs") street gang.10
/ / /
/ / /
/ / / Terrazas and Nunn were the officers assigned to the murder investigation.11 Terrazas knew Gutierrez was a member of the HOBs.12 Terrazas and Nunn were also aware of a rivalry between the HOBs and the 41st Street Gang and that the gangs claimed different sides of the intersection at Main St. and 43rd St.13 Terrazas interrogated more than thirty murder suspects, and Nunn interviewed approximately fifty murder suspects.14 The officers also attempted to obtain information from Gutirrez's family regarding the suspect's identity, but were not successful.15 Galvan was arrested on March 1, 2011 and was interrogated at the LAPD's Newton Division.16 Terrazas and Nunn did not know Galvan prior to this investigation and did not know the witnesses whom they interviewed.17 Criminal charges for Gutierrez's murder were filed against Galvan on March 3, 2011.18 He was acquitted following a 2012 jury trial.19
Shortly after being assigned to the Gutierrez murder investigation, on February 8, 2011, Terrazas interviewed eyewitness Jurado.20 Jurado indicated that he could not make an identification of the suspect.21 He did indicate that a Hispanic male fled the scene of the shooting in an eastbound direction,and that the male was approximately seventeen years of age, 5'5", and 160 lbs.22 Jurado described the suspect as wearing a multi-color Peruvian hat and holding a revolver.23 Galvan's arrest report provides he was 5'5", 150 pounds, twenty-one years of age, and Latino.24 Jurado also indicated at least thirteen times over the course of the interview that the shooter "ran" after firing the gunshots.25
Galvan had suffered an injury to his right ankle, on December 20, 2010, prior to Gutierrez's murder. His Achilles tendon was severed and detached, and he sustained an open fracture to his heel bone requiring extensive surgical intervention to repair. Galvan was unable to bear weight on that heel for more than five months. When defendants arrested Galvan in March 2011, he could only ambulate with crutches and only hop without them.26
The Chronological Record contains the following entry:
27
The entry is listed as an edit to the February 8, 2011 chronological entry regarding Jurado's initial interview, not as a separate entry in the chronological record; as such, it is not apparent from the record when the entry was made.28 Galvan argues this entry was fabricated, and offers Jurado's subscriber records, which do not indicate that any phone calls were made to or from Terrazas onFebruary 14th.29 Defendants contest plaintiff's assertion that the entry was fabricated, conceding that no phone call took place on February 14th, but insisting that the record accurately describes a phone call that took place on February 13th, 2011.30 The parties do not dispute that a phone call took place on February 13th and that no phone call took place on February 14th; however, whether the chronological record reflects the contents of that phone call remains in dispute.
On February 9, 2011, Terrazas interviewed Cifuentes.31 Cifuentes was not present at the time of the murder, and instead related information he had heard from Robert Flores.32 The Statement Form documenting the Cifuentes interview states that Flores told Cifuentes that one of the suspects who fired a gun at Gutierrez was a gang member named "Insane" and had been shot in the foot.33
Galvan contends that the portion of the Statement Form that refers to "Insane" was fabricated.34 The name "Insane" does not appear in the interview transcript, nor does it appear in Terrazas'shandwritten notes taken at the interview.35 Terrazas contends that the reference to "Insane" was made during an unrecorded portion of the interview. However, in another portion of the interview transcript, Cifuentes names "Creep" as the shooting suspect.36 When Galvan's criminal defense counsel followed up with Cifuentes, he told her that although he knew of a gang member called "Insane," that man was not Galvan, but rather an older male who was incarcerated at the time.37 Whether or not this portion of the Cifuentes Statement Form was fabricated remains a disputed fact.
The recorded statement of the Cifuentes interview, as well as the Statement Form, was turned over to the District Attorney's Office.38
Mark Loving was interviewed on February 28, 2011.39 At the time of the interview, Loving lived with his girlfriend, Syrella Carpenter, in the alley behind the city yard, three doors down from Galvan, and east of the intersection of the crime scene.40 Loving was first approached by Nunn, Terrazas and two other detectives in the alley about a week after Gutierrez was killed; he did not provide the officers with any information at that time. Over the course of the next few weeks he was handcuffed and thrown against the fence, taken to the station for questioning three times, and again handcuffed and thrown
/ / /
/ / /against the fence. The detectives also tore the top off of the tarp covering Loving and Carpenter's makeshift home in the alley.41
Ultimately, Loving agreed to have his statement taken on February 28, 2011. During the recorded interview, Loving stated that Galvan admitted that Gutierrez had shot him in the foot on a prior occasion and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial