Martinez v. City of W. Sacramento
| Decision Date | 04 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:16-cv-02566-TLN-EFB,2:16-cv-02566-TLN-EFB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | SONNY MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Sonny Martinez, Jessica Martinez, individually and as guardian ad litem for minors VJM, GRM, ARM, and EVM, and Joann Ramirez's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants Dan T. Zwicky and the United States of America (collectively, the "Federal Defendants") filed an opposition. (ECF No. 66.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion as to the Federal Defendants, (ECF No. 64).
///
///
///
///
///
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 27, 2016 against the City of Stockton and its Police Department, an individual named Dan T. Zwicky, the City of West Sacramento and various of its employees, and an individual named Rafael Altamirano. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges deprivations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint also makes out numerous supplemental claims for relief under the California Constitution, the state's common law of tort, and its statutory law. (ECF No. 1.)
On February 13, 2017, the United States notified the Court of its substitution in place of Zwicky for purposes of all state law tort claims alleged against him, pursuant to provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2679. (ECF No. 37.) This substitution rested on the certification by the Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California that "defendant Dan T. Zwicky is an employee of the United States and was acting in the scope of such employment at the time of the events alleged in the Complaint, and so, by operation of law, is entitled to the official immunity of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 for all tort claims." (ECF No. 37 at 3.) Specifically, the U.S. Attorney's Office certified Zwicky as a federal employee because during the events in the Complaint, he was assigned as a Task Force Officer on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ("FBI") Safe Streets Task Force. (ECF No. 44-1 at 1-2.)
Following its limited substitution as a defendant, the United States moved to dismiss all state law tort claims originally alleged against Zwicky on grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear those claims as alleged against the United States. (ECF No. 44.) Specifically, the United States argued that it has waived sovereign immunity for tort claims only to the extent that an administrative claim is first submitted to the appropriate federal agency as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b) and 2675(a), which did not occur here. (ECF No. 44-1 at 2-3.) As evidence that no such administrative claim was filed, the United States submitted a declaration from Deborah Crum—the Unit Chief of Discovery Processing Unit I in the FBI's Office of General Counsel—stating that no administrative claims exist in the FBI's Central Records Systemfor Plaintiffs Sonny Martinez or Jessica Martinez. (ECF No. 44-2 at 1-2.)
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the United States' motion to dismiss in which they conceded that their failure to comply with administrative claim adjudication procedures would be fatal to their "claims covered by the Westfall Act" if the Court were to rule that the United States was properly substituted as the defendant for those claims. (ECF No. 54 at 3.) For that reason, Plaintiffs used their opposition to "challenge the Attorney General's course and scope certification of Defendant Zwicky under the Westfall Act." (ECF No. 54 at 1.) To vindicate this challenge, Plaintiffs requested "limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing if necessary to resolve the factual dispute" about whether Zwicky was properly certified as acting within the course of his federal employment during the events giving rise to this litigation. (ECF No. 54 at 2.) Plaintiffs also set forth ten additional factual allegations in their opposition papers, allegations they argue would—if proven—invalidate the United States' certification that Zwicky was acting as a federal employee during the events giving rise to the complaint. (ECF No. 54 at 2-3.)
The United States filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss, contending that (i) Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the presumption of propriety that the Court must afford the U.S. Attorney's Office's certification of Zwicky as a federal employee, and (ii) even if Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to meet their initial evidentiary burden challenging this certification, the challenge would still fail because the evidence demonstrates that Zwicky was at all relevant times acting within the scope of his federal employment. (ECF No. 62.) As evidentiary support for this second argument, the United States attached a declaration from Zwicky which stated that he has been a sworn federal officer on the FBI's Stockton Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force since 2014. (ECF No. 62-1.) The United States also attached a declaration from a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Stockton Resident Agency which stated that Zwicky's task force investigated drug trafficking, gangs, and violent crime in the Stockton area. (ECF No. 62-2.)
Separately, Zwicky filed his own motion to dismiss the remaining constitutional tort claims alleged against him in the Complaint. (ECF No. 43.) Specifically, Zwicky argued that the Complaint's allegations failed to state a claim that he, through his own individual actions and notmerely as a member of a group, committed any acts that rise to the level of a constitutional violation. (ECF No. 43-1 at 1.) Zwicky also argued that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions he allegedly committed because he did not "personally engage[] in any actions that violated the Constitution." (ECF No. 43-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Zwicky's motion. (ECF No. 53.)
The separate motions to dismiss filed by the United States, (ECF No. 44), and by Zwicky, (ECF No. 43), remain pending before the Court, as does Plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing to challenge the United States' course-and-scope certification pursuant to the Westfall Act, (ECF No. 54). Plaintiffs now request leave to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 64.) The Federal Defendants filed a joint opposition. (ECF No. 66.) The Federal Defendants' opposition argued that the Court should deny Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend because Plaintiffs unduly delayed amending their pleadings, the amended allegations are so implausible as to be made in bad faith, and the proposed amendment would prejudice the Federal Defendants. (ECF No. 66 at 1-5.) The Federal Defendants' opposition also argued that allowing amendment would be futile as to the state law tort claims originally alleged against Zwicky, because any such amendments would not change the fact that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those claims as brought against the United States. (ECF No. 66 at 5.) As to the non-state-law claims that remain against Zwicky, the Federal Defendants argued that leave to amend those claims should be denied because they are implausible and fail to allege Zwicky's personal involvement in the constitutional violations alleged. (ECF No. 66 at 5-6.)
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that, as relevant here, the following summary of events occurred giving rise to the state law tort claims alleged against Zwicky.
In the evening of October 24, 2015, a thirteen-year-old resident of West Sacramento named Alize Valadez was shot while she sat inside her grandmother's house in West Sacramento. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 72.) Over at least the next two days, local and regional news media outletsbroadcast details of Ms. Valadez's shooting. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 110, 119.) During this same period, Defendant Rafael Altamirano, who was a convicted felon acting as a paid informant, (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18, 32-39), and who interacted with known gangs, (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 48, 51), unsuccessfully attempted numerous times to contact Plaintiff Sonny Martinez via cellular phone, (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 95, 111). Zwicky, who according to the Complaint was an employee of the City of Stockton's Police Department, (ECF No. 1 ¶ 16), on October 26 spoke both with Altamirano and with one or more of the Defendants who were employed by the City of West Sacramento, (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 120-21). Altamirano claimed to Zwicky that Martinez had confessed to shooting Ms. Valadez. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 139.13.) On October 26, Altamirano drove to Martinez's residence and asked if Martinez had heard about the shooting of Ms. Valadez, which Martinez denied. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 124.) Later that same day, Altamirano made three additional and unsuccessful attempts to contact Martinez via cellular phone "at the request of one or more defendants." (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 126-28.)
When West Sacramento law enforcement agents investigating Ms. Valadez's shooting applied for and obtained search warrants targeted at Martinez, they falsely stated in their probable cause affidavits that Martinez had called Altamirano to confess to shooting Ms. Valadez and that this shooting was gang-related. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 133-38.18, 140.1-41.14.) Once these invalid warrants were in hand, unspecified "defendants" then took numerous steps to deprive Plaintiffs of their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by arresting Sonny Martinez and searching and seizing his and his family's property without probable cause, (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 144-57), using...
To continue reading
Request your trial