Hernandez v. City of Napa

Decision Date21 March 2011
Docket NumberNo. C–09–02782 EDL.,C–09–02782 EDL.
Citation781 F.Supp.2d 975
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesLuz HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,v.CITY OF NAPA, et al., Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Tim Allen Pori, Vallejo, CA, Anthony David Prince, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff.David C. Jones, Napa, CA, Gregory Mellon Fox, Bertrand Fox & Elliot, San Francisco, CA, Kevin E. Gilbert, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, Oakland, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CITY OF NAPA AND OFFICER BENDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING COUNTY OF NAPA DEPUTY SHERIFF HALLMAN'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF CONSPIRACY CLAIM; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, United States Magistrate Judge.

This action arises out of Plaintiff Luz Hernandez's arrest on April 1, 2008 following an altercation with her ex-boyfriend Donald Green and police officers from the City of Napa and the Napa County Sheriff's Department's response to a report of domestic violence. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts various state law torts claims and claims for violation of her civil rights under § 1983 by members of the Napa City Police Department and the Napa County Sheriff's Department. The Court has previously granted in part the Napa County Defendant's motion for summary judgment, leaving only Plaintiff's claim for conspiracy against Napa County Deputy Sheriff Hallman. Before the Court is Defendants City of Napa, Napa Police Chief Melton and Officer Bender's (collectively the City Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. Napa County Deputy Sheriff Hallman has filed a joinder to the motion, and moves for summary adjudication of the conspiracy claim against him, thereby terminating the action as to the County Defendants. For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the City Defendants' motion; DENIES Deputy Bender's motion; and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to strike.

I. Factual Background

On April 1, 2008, Plaintiff Luz Hernandez and her former boyfriend Defendant Donald Green, who is or was a Napa State Hospital security officer, were involved in an altercation in her home. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 10. Plaintiff and Mr. Green had been in an on-and-off dating relationship since 2006 or 2007 and he had stayed at her house at times during their relationship. Fox Decl. Ex. H (Hernandez Depo.) at 71–72. On April 1, Plaintiff left work before 10:00 p.m. so that she would have time to get home before Mr. Green's shift ended at 10:00 p.m. SAC ¶ 11. When she arrived home, Ms. Hernandez found Officer Green in her house wearing only his underwear. Hernandez Depo. at 87–88. He appeared to be intoxicated and stumbling and “had to bounce himself off from wall to wall.” Hernandez Depo. 89–90. He was bleeding from what looked like a mole he had tried to cut with a pair of scissors. Hernandez Depo. 152–53. Mr. Green stumbled towards Plaintiff, tried to hug her and stated that he wanted to talk to her. SAC ¶ 13; Hernandez Depo. at 89–90. Plaintiff ran to the front door, but Mr. Green grabbed her from behind with both of his hands. SAC ¶ 13; Hernandez Depo. 90–93. Plaintiff tried to get away, and told Mr. Green that she wanted him to leave. SAC ¶ 13; Hernandez Depo. at 95. Plaintiff telephoned 911 while yelling “get the f*# % out of my house,” during which Mr. Green slapped the telephone from her hands. SAC ¶ 13; Hernandez Depo. 102. After this, Plaintiff started hitting Mr. Green and punching his chest with as much force as she had, as well as kicking, screaming and shouting. SAC ¶ 13; Hernandez Depo. at 105–106, 153–154.

As a result of Plaintiff's 911 call, the dispatcher assigned City of Napa Officer Bender and two other City of Napa officers to Plaintiff's residence. Officer Bender knew by the time he arrived at Plaintiff's door that there was an argument and a hangup call and someone had called for help. Fox Decl. Ex. I (Bender Depo.) at 47–48. He was aware at some point that a female voice had said “get the f*# % out of my house.” Bender Depo. at 47–48. Officer Bender did not ask dispatch to check for previous incidents of domestic violence calls to Plaintiff's residence. Bender Depo. at 56. Officer Bender ran a warrants report for Plaintiff after he arrested her. Bender Depo. at 55.

Deputy Sheriff John Hallman of the Napa County Sheriff's Department heard the dispatch call, determined that he was closer to Officer Bender than the other two officers, and volunteered to respond to provide “cover” to Officer Bender until the two other officers could get there. Fox Decl. Ex. J (Hallman Depo.) at 65. When Deputy Hallman arrived on scene, he could not “remember exactly what the call was, but [that] it was something—either 911 hang-up or 415 family disturbance, something to that effect.” Hallman Depo. at 88. When he first arrived, Deputy Hallman did not inquire as to who called the police. Hallman Depo. 89. Upon arrival at Plaintiff's residence, Deputy Hallman activated a digital recording device worn on his person to record the incident. Hallman Depo. at 90. Following the incident, Deputy Hallman did not book the recording into evidence or provide it to Officer Bender and did not write a report regarding the incident. Hallman Depo. 58, 63–65, 91. However, the recording was maintained and has been previously produced in this litigation.1 Officer Bender had an audio recording device with him at the time of the incident but did not use it out of habit. Bender Depo. at 35–36, 40–41.

As Deputy Hallman and Officer Bender approached Plaintiff's house, they heard yelling inside. SAC ¶ 15; Bender Depo. at 197–98; Hallman Depo. at 117. Mr. Green answered the door dressed only in boxer shorts and bleeding. Bender Depo. at 62; Hernandez Depo. at 109–110, 206–207. Mr. Green had scratches on his chest. Bender Depo. at 132–134; Hallman Depo. at 103–104, 130–131. Upon entering Plaintiff's residence, Deputy Hallman and Officer Bender separated Plaintiff and Mr. Green, and Deputy Hallman escorted Plaintiff to her bedroom. SAC ¶ 15, Hallman Depo. 72–73; Hernandez Depo. 134. Deputy Hallman's contact with Plaintiff in her bedroom lasted two to three minutes. Hernandez Depo. at 316, 319. When Deputy Hallman asked Ms. Hernandez, “What are you fighting about?” Ms. Hernandez replied: He came into my bedroom.” TX 3–4. Rather than following up on this response, Deputy Hallman introduced himself and asked Ms. Hernandez her name. TX 4. Deputy Hallman gathered basic information such as Plaintiff's name and date of birth. Hallman Depo. 73–74; Hernandez Depo. 113–116, 315–316. Plaintiff stated that she owned the house and had been in a dating relationship with Mr. Green. Hallman Depo. at 73. Plaintiff went to the bathroom to rinse and spit in the sink, but did not see whether she spit something pink into the sink and did not know if she had an injury to her mouth. Hernandez Depo. at 116, 147, 148. Deputy Hallman thought he saw her spit something pink which could be blood and asked her about it. Hallman Depo. at 74, 85, 87. Plaintiff told Deputy Hallman that “nothing happened” and she was not injured. Hernandez Depo. 116, 198; Hallman Depo. at 74, 87. Deputy Hallman also asked to see her hands and wrists because he thought he observed a red mark on one wrist and was investigating whether or not Ms. Hernandez had any injuries. Hallman Depo. at 83.

Deputy Hallman told Officer Bender that Plaintiff spit something that appeared to be pink into the sink, as well as information about her wrists, and told Officer Bender that the fight appeared to have gotten physical. Bender Depo. at 90; Hallman Depo. at 85–86, 88, 102, 118–119, 126. After Deputy Hallman left the room, Plaintiff told another officer (not Officer Bender or Deputy Hallman) that Mr. Green was shaking and mishandling her. Hernandez Depo. at 118–120.

Officer Bender also spoke with Plaintiff to try to determine what had happened. Bender Depo. at 83–84. She was fully clothed, wearing a long sleeve sweater and long pants. Bender Depo. at 74; Hernandez Depo. at 87–88. Officer Bender asked Plaintiff if she had been hit in the mouth and she did not say anything. Bender Depo. at 66. Officer Bender examined Plaintiff's mouth with his flashlight and did not see any injuries inside her mouth. Bender Depo. at 90–91; Hernandez Depo. at 148. Plaintiff never stated that she had any injury in her mouth, she did not believe she was injured and did not know why he was looking in her mouth. Bender Depo. at 92; Hernandez Depo. at 148–50. Officer Bender also looked at Plaintiff's wrists but did not note any injury, and Plaintiff did not see any marks on her wrists. Bender Depo. at 66; Hernandez Depo. at 301–302. Officer Bender did not ask Mr. Green whether he hit Plaintiff or about her wrists. Bender Depo. at 66–67.

Plaintiff never told Officer Bender or Deputy Hallman that Mr. Green grabbed her or physically assaulted her, she did not tell them she was injured, she did not have any visible injuries, and she did not show them any physical condition that she thought might be an injury or ask for medical treatment. Hernandez Depo. at 123–125, 139, 142, 144, 199, 302. When questioned by Officer Bender, Plaintiff repeated that “nothing happened” and she was not injured. Bender Depo. at 66, 72, 83, 107–108, 148; Hernandez Depo. 116 (officer asked if she had injuries and she said no), 207–209 (officers kept asking her what happened and she said “nothing”). She did, however, tell them that Mr. Green attacked her. Hernandez Depo. at 131–132 (she told Officer Bender with Deputy Hallman present that Mr. Green attacked her), 135 (told Officer Bender that Mr. Green attacked her, but did not say he “physically attacked” her), 137 (told Officer Bender that Mr. Green attacked her), 139–142 (same), 217, 312 (she told Officer Bender that Mr. Green attacked her with Deputy Hallman in the room). Plaintiff's refusal to answer questions caused Officer Bender to believe she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Julian v. Mission Cmty. Hosp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 2017
    ...resulting from the conspiracy. (Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okl. (9th Cir. 1989) 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 ; see Hernandez v. City of Napa (N.D. Cal. 2011) 781 F.Supp.2d 975, 997.) Because ultimately Julian did not allege any state tort cause of action and cannot show any actual deprivation of he......
  • Sanchez v. City of Fresno
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 26, 2012
    ...in a lawsuit, a court may dismiss the individual named in his official capacity as a redundant defendant. Hernandez v. City of Napa, 781 F.Supp.2d 975, 1001 (N.D.Cal.2011).17 Accordingly, the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the official capacity claims against them is GRANTED, as a......
  • Sanchez v. City of Fresno
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 26, 2012
    ...in a lawsuit, a court may dismiss the individual named in his official capacity as a redundant defendant. Hernandez v. City of Napa, 781 F. Supp. 2d 975, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2011).17 Accordingly, the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the official capacity claims against them is GRANTED, ......
  • Bauldry v. Cnty. of Contra Costa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 23, 2013
    ...court has recognized that a duty may arise based on a conspiracy that places the victim in harm's way. See Hernandez v. City of Napa, 781 F. Supp. 2d 975, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As suggested in Judge Illston's previous order, the Dirty DUI conspiracy placed Plaintiff in a position of harm, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT