Mann v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

• Decision Date: 30 January 2023
• Docket Number: 1:21-CV-1098 AWI SKO
• Parties: ESTATE OF XANDER MANN, AMY PICKERING, JUSTIN MANN, and HECTOR DEL ALTO, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., Defendants AND RELATED CROSSCLAIMS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

ESTATE OF XANDER MANN, AMY PICKERING, JUSTIN MANN, and HECTOR DEL ALTO, Plaintiffs
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., Defendants

AND RELATED CROSSCLAIMS

No. 1:21-CV-1098 AWI SKO

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 30, 2023

ORDER ON DEFENDANT HATFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 70)

This case arises from the fatal encounter between minor Decedent Xander Mann (“Decedent” or “Mann”) and members of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department (“SCSD”). Plaintiffs allege state law claims for violation of the California Constitution, the Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), assault/battery, negligence, and wrongful death, as well as federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Currently before the Court is Defendant Stanislaus County Sheriff's Deputy Sgt. Darwin Hatfield's (“Hatfield”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all claims alleged against him in the First Amended Complaint (“the FAC”) of the Estate of Mann, Amy Pickering, and Justin Mann (“the Mann Plaintiffs”).^[1] For the reasons that follow, Hatfield's motion will be granted and all plaintiffs will be ordered to file a amended unified complaint.

1

RULE 12(b)(6) FRAMEWORK

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff's “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. See Yoshikawa v. Seguirant, 41 F.4th 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2022). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). However, complaints that offer no more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1145. The Court is “not required to accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251, 1254 (9th Cir. 2013). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Armstrong v. Reynolds, 22 F.4th 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2022). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Miller v. Sawant, 18 F.4th 328, 336 (9th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs cannot “rely on anticipated discovery to satisfy Rules 8 and 12(b)(6); rather, pleadings must assert well-pleaded factual allegations to advance to discovery.” Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2021). If a motion to dismiss is granted, “[the] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made . . . .” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). However, leave to amend need not be granted if amendment would be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies despite repeated opportunities. Garmon v. County of L.A., 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016).

2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

From the FAC, on May 18, 2021, at around 2 a.m., 16 year old Mann was driving his 1993 Ford Escort in Stanislaus County around the City of Modesto. Mann had four companions with him in his car, a 14 year old in the front passenger seat, 18 year old Rhiannon Taylor in the rear passenger seat, a 15 year old in the rear center seat, and 16 year old co-plaintiff Hector Del Alto in the rear passenger seat behind the front passenger seat. Mann's vehicle was pulled over by Stanislaus County Sheriff's Deputies Tovar and Stanley for two Vehicle Code violations - an expired registration and an inoperable headlight.

Tovar approached the driver's side of Mann's vehicle and noticed that the car had five teenaged occupants. Mann rolled his window half-way down, Tovar told Mann to turn off the car, and then Mann drove away from the scene without complying with Tovar's command. Tovar returned to his patrol car, reported Mann's vehicle and actions over the radio, indicated that Mann's vehicle had five occupants, and then initiated an allegedly “dangerous vehicle pursuit.” Defendant Stanislaus Sheriff's Deputy Gerardo Zazueta (“Zazueta”) and Hatfield, among others, joined the pursuit. Zazueta in a large SUV was the lead pursuit vehicle immediately behind Mann.

Hatfield as a supervising sergeant was “monitoring” the situation. Hatfield knew that deputies were in pursuit of a vehicle for Vehicle Code violations, the vehicle had five occupants, the pursuit was at low speeds, and there was no traffic in the area. Hatfield requested that the Modesto Police Department (“MPD”) deploy spike-strips to stop Mann's vehicle, and MPD began actively attempting to get ahead of pursuit to deploy spike-strips. However, it does not appear that MPD ever effectively deployed the spike-strips.

After traveling about 15 miles in 20 minutes, Zazueta requested permission from Hatfield to use a Pursuit Intervention Technique (“PIT”) on Mann's vehicle. Zazueta knew that the pursuit was based on minor Vehicle Code violations, the pursuit was low speed, there was no traffic, and the vehicle was emitting smoke and had five occupants. Zazueta had utilized the PIT in the past and believed that it would probably end the pursuit. Hatfield authorized Zazueta to utilize a PIT. The Mann Plaintiffs allege that Hatfield's authorization of the PIT violated POST and SCSD policies, including Policy 314 and Policy 314.7.

3

Zazueta used a PIT against Mann's vehicle. The PIT caused Mann's vehicle to spin out in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. When Deputy Stanley saw Zazueta utilize the PIT, he exclaimed: “Watch out! Watch out! Watch out for your partner! Watch out for your partner! Gerardo, there's kids in there!” Plaintiffs allege that Zazueta's use of the PIT violated POST policies and SCSD policies, including Policy 314 and Policy 314.7.

After the spinout, Mann's vehicle moved in reverse and came to a stop against a curb. At that time, Mann and his passengers agreed that it was time to end the pursuit and for Mann to surrender. Mann slowly moved his vehicle forward from the curb. Zazueta, Hatfield, and Tovar moved their patrol vehicles to “box in” and “triangulate” Mann's vehicle. The three officers stopped their vehicles in a manner that allegedly “forced” Mann to maneuver his car away from the patrol vehicles in order to avoid a collision.

Mann drove his vehicle slowly forward at about 5 m.p.h. in a gap between Zazueta and Tovar's vehicles. Mann then reached for the key to turn off his vehicle while he drove his car away from the patrol vehicles to avoid a collision. Mann moved his vehicle slowly in the opposite direction and passed Zazueta and Tovar's vehicles. Mann's car did not come close to hitting any patrol vehicle. However, Zazueta quickly exited his vehicle on the driver side, drew his pistol, and pointed it at Mann's vehicle as it slowly moved passed Zazueta and his patrol vehicle. By getting out of his patrol vehicle, Zazueta took up a more dangerous position. Mann never drove his car in a manner that was a threat to Zazueta or anyone else, rather, Mann slowly drove his car forward while attempting to remove the key from the ignition. Zazueta was never in the path of Mann's vehicle and was never in danger of being struck by Mann's vehicle. Nevertheless, Zazueta fired his pistol at least three times at Mann's vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that these gunshots violated POST policies and SCSD policies, including Policy 300, Policy 300.4.1, and Policy 314.7.3

Zazueta's gunshots struck Mann and Del Alto. Del Alto's forehead was grazed by one of the bullets. Mann was struck twice in the head, with one shot hitting near Mann's left temple and the other shot hitting the back left side of his head. Mann immediately lost consciousness. Mann's body fell limp in the driver's seat and his foot depressed the accelerator. Mann's vehicle accelerated forward for several yards and then began to arc to the left before eventually crashing

4

head-on into a utility pole. The pursuit had ended after approximately 20 minutes had elapsed and 15 miles had been traveled.

Numerous Sheriff's deputies approached Mann's vehicle and began the process of removing the occupants, including Mann.^[2] Despite several opportunities to do so, Zazueta failed to activate his body warn camera during the vehicle pursuit and did not do so until well-after the incident had concluded and Mann's body was pulled from the vehicle. Hatfield also failed to activate his body warn camera during the incident. Hatfield and Zazueta's failures to turn on their bodycams allegedly violated SCSD Policy 445. While other deputies did turn on their cameras, those deputies often muted their cameras. Hatfield, and others, also muted their cameras while describing with their supervisors the pursuit and shooting immediately after it occurred. This also allegedly violated Policy 445.

Mann was transported to a hospital and placed on life support, but was also pronounced braindead. Mann was removed from life-support several days later. Del Alto required forty-eight stitches to treat his head wound.

The FAC alleges state and federal claims against Hatfield. After incorporating the general factual allegations by reference, each claim alleges that Hatfield “failed to intercede in,...