Little v. Gore
| Decision Date | 08 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-02181-BAS(JMA) |
| Citation | 148 F.Supp.3d 936 |
| Parties | Deborah Dee Little, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William D. Gore, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Nathan Aaron Shaman, The Law Offices of Nathan Shaman, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.
David L. Brodie, Office of the County Counsel, Jane M. Boardman, Office of the San Diego City Attorney, Steve B. Chu, US Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
(1) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN (ECF NO. 3);
On September 12, 2014, Plaintiffs Deborah Dee Little and Dennis George Little (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants William D. Gore (“Gore”), as Sheriff for the County of San Diego, Shelley Zimmerman (“Zimmerman”), as Chief of Police for the City of San Diego, Matt Stevens (“Stevens”), a Deputy Sheriff for the County of San Diego, Evan Sobczak (“Sobczak”), a Deputy Sheriff for the County of San Diego, Paul Paxton (“Paxton”), a Detective for the San Diego Police Department, and Justin Faw (“Faw”), a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Presently before the Court are (1) a motion to dismiss all causes of action filed by Zimmerman; (2) a motion to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action filed by Stevens and Sobczak, and all causes of action by Gore; and (3) a motion to dismiss all causes of action by Faw.
The Court finds these motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Zimmerman's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3); GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss filed by Gore, Sobczak and Stevens (ECF No. 7); and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Faw's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13).
On October 16, 2012, Stevens swore an affidavit to San Diego County Superior Court stating that he observed “well over 100 growing marijuana plants” on Plaintiffs' property while conducting aerial reconnaissance on September 17, 2012 and October 11, 2012. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 11-12.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant Stevens “knew from his observations that there were well under 100 marijuana plants on the [property] but embellished his observations in order to deceive Judge Rubin into issuing a search warrant.” (Id . at ¶ 12.) Judge Rubin subsequently issued a search warrant authorizing the search of Plaintiffs' property and the seizure of any marijuana. (Id . at ¶ 12.)
At 5:00 a.m. on October 17, 2012, Stevens, Sobczak, Paxton, and Faw (collectively, the “Defendant Officers”), members of the San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force, executed the search warrant at Plaintiffs' property. (Id . at ¶15.) The Defendant Officers, “dressed in military-style fatigues and armed with firearms, some of which were assault rifles, stormed [Plaintiffs' property] in a SWAT-style raid with weapons drawn.” (Id . at ¶ 16.) Upon entering Plaintiffs' property, the Defendant Officers located Mr. Little, arrested him and put him in handcuffs. (Id . at ¶ 17.) Stevens allegedly “questioned [Mr. Little] without reading him Miranda rights despite keeping [Mr. Little] in handcuffs.” (Id . at ¶ 18.) The Defendant Officers then located Mrs. Little, and Sobczak “arrested [her] by putting handcuffs on [her] wrists behind her back and locking her in the rear seat of his patrol vehicle with the air conditioning running, despite the cold air outside. (Id . at ¶ 19.) Prior to her arrest, Mrs. Little informed the Defendant Officers that “she has been sick for the past two months with pneumonia
“After an unknown period of time, [Stevens] questioned [Mrs. Little] without reading her Miranda rights.” (Id . at ¶ 20.) Sobczak then removed Mrs. Little from the patrol vehicle “after an unknown period of time” and ordered her to remain seated in a chair. (Id . at ¶ 21.) Before sitting down, Mrs. Little, who was wearing only shorts and a t-shirt, informed the Defendant Officers “that the chair was on top of an anthill of red ants and that she was extremely allergic to red ants, that she was very cold, and that she was suffering from various symptoms of HIV.” (Id .) Despite informing the Defendant Officers on several occasions that she needed to use the bathroom and could not control her bladder because of radiation damage to her bladder and intestines from her cancer
treatment, Mrs. Little was not allowed to use the bathroom. (Id . at ¶ 22.) As a result, she involuntarily relieved herself while seated outside and was unable to change into clean clothing until the Defendant Officers left the property. (Id .)
At the time of the search, Plaintiffs were “valid qualified patients under Cal. Health & Safety [Code] §§ 11362.5
and 11362.765,” and Mr. Little was Mrs. Little's primary caregiver. (Id . at ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs allege the Defendant Officers searching the property were aware of these facts. (Id. )
In the course of conducting the search, Stevens claimed the Defendant Officers located over 640 pounds of marijuana “in the form of untrimmed buds, packaged marijuana, and marijuana edibles.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n reality, [they] were in possession of far less processed and unprocessed marijuana.” (Id .) Plaintiffs allege the Defendant Officers destroyed the seized marijuana the following day by dumping it at the Miramar Landfill. (Id . at ¶ 26.)
On November 5, 2012, the San Diego County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Plaintiffs with one count of unlawful possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11359
, and one count of unlawful cultivation of marijuana in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11358. (Id . at ¶ 27.) In the course of pretrial hearings, the trial court granted a motion to exclude evidence pursuant to Arizona v. Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) and California v. Trombetta , 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), “finding that the [Defendant] [O]fficers had violated the [Plaintiffs'] due process rights by destroying material, exculpatory evidence.” (Id . at ¶ 28.) At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of unlawful possession and deadlocked on the charge of unlawful cultivation. (Id . at ¶ 29.) The trial court ultimately dismissed the cultivation count in the furtherance of justice pursuant to California Penal Code section 1385
. (Id. )
Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 12, 2014 asserting the following causes of action in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
: (1) search and seizure unsupported by a warrant against Stevens; (2) unreasonable search against all defendants; (3) excessive force against all defendants; (4) Miranda violations against Stevens; and (5) due process violations against all defendants.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.2001). The court must accept all allegations of material fact pleaded in the complaint as true and must construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co ., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir.1996). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ) (internal quotations omitted).
“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle [ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955
(quoting Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (alteration in original)). A court need not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. “[T]o be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.2011). Despite the deference the court must pay to the plaintiff's allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the...laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters , 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983).
Generally, courts may not consider material outside the complaint when ruling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Organics v. Cnty. of San Diego
...pursuant to ‘an ill-begotten or otherwise invalid warrant,’ " which is known as a claim for judicial deception. Little v. Gore , 148 F.Supp.3d 936, 946 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Bravo v. City of Santa Maria , 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) ). To state a claim for judicial deception und......
-
Taylor v. Montgomery Cnty. Md.
... ... presented any notable symptoms during a medical evaluation a ... week later for hypothermia”); Little v. Gore , ... 148 F.Supp.3d 936, 952 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (finding no excessive ... force claim where the plaintiff alleged he was handcuffed ... ...
-
Edmonds v. The John Steward Co.
... ... indifference[.]” Young v. City of Visalia, 687 ... F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Little v ... Gore, 148 F.Supp.3d 936, 957 ... (S.D. Cal. 2015) (“Courts in this circuit now generally ... dismiss claims that fail to ... ...
-
Vail v. City of Sacramento
...to deliberate indifference[.]" Young v. City of Visalia, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Little v. Gore, 148 F.Supp.3d 936, 957 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ("Courts in this circuit now generally dismiss claims that fail to identify the specific content of the municipal entity's a......
-
CANNA BIZ PROTECT ITS MARK?: TRADEMARKING CHALLENGES IN THE BUDDING CANNABIS INDUSTRY.
...of marijuana, even though his right to possession was protected by California's medical marijuana law). See, e.g., Little v. Gore, 148 F. Supp. 3d 936, 955 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that "[w]ith respect to medical marijuana, although California state law may create a property interest in th......