Lanier v. City Of Fresno

• Decision Date: 09 December 2010
• Docket Number: CASE NO. CV F 10-1120 LJO SKO
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: KHALID LANIER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, et al, Defendants.

KHALID LANIER, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF FRESNO, et al, Defendants.

CASE NO. CV F 10-1120 LJO SKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: December 9, 2010

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' F.R.Civ.P. 12 MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Defendants County of Fresno ("County"), City of Fresno ("City") and two City police officers¹seek to dismiss plaintiff Khalid Lanier's ("Mr. Lanier's") excessive force, deliberate indifference for medical care, and Monell claims as time barred and lacking sufficient facts. Mr. Lanier responds that defendants' challenges to his claims lack merit in that the claims are sufficiently pled. This Court considered defendants' F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the record without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons discussed below, this Court DISMISSES Mr. Lanier's claims subject to defendants' motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND²

During the late afternoon of June 20, 2008, Mr. Lanier, who is black, drove on a Fresno freeway a sedan which he did not know had been stolen by his girlfriend and passenger, Carol Schumann ("Ms. Schumann"). Mr. Lanier became aware of a police siren to pull him over. Ms. Schumann informed Mr. Lanier that she had stolen the car and possessed a firearm. Mr. Lanier exited the freeway and drove near a retirement home where he parked.

Mr. Lanier remained in the car and placed his arms visibly atop the steering wheel to surrender peaceably. Officers Castillo and Taylor's squad car headed to the front driver's side of Mr. Lanier's car at a high rate of speed.³ Mr. Lanier perceived that Officers Castillo and Taylor intended to drive the squad car directly into Mr. Lanier. Mr. Lainer fled from his vehicle to avoid the squad car's crashing into the driver's side of Mr. Lanier's car.

Officer Castillo followed Mr. Lanier into the retirement home where Mr. Lanier attempted to surrender in a small unoccupied cafeteria. Officer Castillo shot Mr. Lanier in the back multiple times with Officer Castillo's 10 mm handgun although Mr. Lanier posed no threat of death or serious physical harm to anyone and lacked a weapon.

Officers Castillo and Taylor moved Mr. Lanier from the air conditioned retirement home to an outdoor courtyard where Mr. Lanier was subjected to "suffocating heat" in excess of 100 degrees and improperly treated for his "obvious critical condition."⁴

While under arrest and in custody, Mr. Lanier underwent surgery at Fresno Community Medical Center for gunshot wounds, damage to his liver, spleen and rib cage, and other injuries and was prematurely discharged "after about seven days despite being in critical condition."

Mr. Lanier was incarcerated during December 2008 to his February 10, 2010 release.

Mr. Lanier's Government Claim

Pursuant to the California Government Claims Act ("Claims Act"), Cal. Gov. Code, §§ 810, et seq., Mr. Lanier submitted his December 17, 2008 claim ("government claim") to the City to allege: "Officer Castillo did not comply with his training and used excessive force." On January 27, 2009, the City mailed to Mr. Lanier at the Fresno County Jail its notice of the same date to reject Mr. Lanier's claim.

Mr. Lanier's Claims In This Action

The FAC accuses Doe Defendant City police and County Sheriff s Department personnel to have obtained Mr. Lanier's premature hospital discharge. The FAC alleges that the City and County engaged in "deliberate acts, reckless conduct, and negligence in failing to train, supervise, discipline and/or investigate complaints and/or other charges" against City and County peace officers. The FAC alleges a City custom and policy "to use excessive force against citizens" evidenced by the City Police Department's "failure to train, supervise, discipline and/or investigate complaints and/or charges" against City police officers "who had a known propensity for violence and excessive force and for violating the constitutional rights of citizens."

As discussed in greater detail below, the FAC alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983") for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and California tort and statutory claims. The FAC seeks recovery for Mr. Lanier's physical injuries, medical expenses, lost earnings, pain, emotional distress and attorney fees as well as punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss Standards

Defendants seek to dismiss portions of the FAC's claims as insufficiently pled factually and legally.

A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. "When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9^th Cir. 1997). A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9^th Cir. 1990); Graehling v. Village of Lombard, Ill., 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7^th Cir. 1995).

In resolving a F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, a court must: (1) construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; (2) accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true; and (3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, a court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9^th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A court "need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations," U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643, n. 2 (9^th Cir.1986), and must not ' 'assume that the [plaintiff] can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated... laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897 (1983). A court need not permit an attempt to amend if "it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by an amendment." Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9^th Cir. 2005).

"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, a court "will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, fails to plead sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action." Student Loan Marketing Ass'n v. Hanes, 181 F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D. Cal. 1998). In practice, a complaint "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562, 127 S.Ct. at 1969 (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7^th Cir. 1984)).

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained:

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."... A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.... The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. (Citations omitted.)

After discussing Iqbal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized: "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory 'factual content, ' and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 989 (9^th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, __ U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. at 1949).

The U.S. Supreme Court applies a "two-prong approach" to address a motion to dismiss:

First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.... Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.... Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.... But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not "show[n]"-"that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to...