Matthews v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz
| Decision Date | 12 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:20-cv-01619-EJD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | DARIN MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; STEVEN CARNEY; CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY; SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE OFFICERS (NAMES UNKNOWN) BADGE NUMBERS 5430, 5140, 5890, 5281; TWENTY UNKNOWN DEPUTIES/AGENTS/EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ AND TWENTY UNKNOWN OFFICERS/AGENTS/EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY; Defendants. |
Plaintiff Darin Matthews ("Plaintiff") recently filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1, "Complaint") in this matter against County of Santa Cruz; Steven Carney1; City of Scotts Valley; Scotts Valley Police Officers (Names Unknown) Badge Numbers 5430, 5140, 5890, 5281; twenty unknown deputies/agents/employees of the County of Santa Cruz; and twenty unknown officers/agents/employees of the City of Scotts Valley ("All Defendants"). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all City of Scotts Valley defendants (City of Scotts Valley; Scotts Valley police officers (Names Unknown) Badge Numbers 5430, 5140, 5890,5281; and twenty unknown officers/agents/employees of the City of Scotts Valley) ("City Defendants") seek to dismiss all causes of action made against them in the Complaint.2 Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 25 ("MTD"). The Court took the motions under submission for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss claims made against City Defendants.
Plaintiff Darin Matthews is a resident of the County of Santa Cruz. Complaint ¶ 3.3 Plaintiff alleges that, at approximately 6:30am PST on February 19, 2019, while Plaintiff was driving to work, Plaintiff was pulled over by police officers driving a City of Scotts Valley ("City") police vehicle. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff stopped his car at the Union 76 gas station on Mt. Herman Road, about one half of a mile from Plaintiff's home. Id. The officers informed him that the reason the officers pulled his car over was that Plaintiff was using paper license plates on his vehicle. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff told the officers that "he had recently purchased the vehicle from a dealership in Oregon." Id. Plaintiff offered to show the officers the paperwork but the officers "did not look at or check [P]laintiff's paperwork." Id.
The officers asked Plaintiff to get out of his vehicle. Id. ¶ 9. The officers told Plaintiff that they "were going to search him." Id. Plaintiff alleges that "[w]hen PLAINTIFF asked what was the real reason for the stop, OFFICERS failed and refused to give plaintiff any further explanation." Id. At the request of the officers, Plaintiff provided his California driver's license, which was "current and valid." Id. The officers did not request "proof of registration orownership" of the vehicle. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that "[o]ne of the OFFICERS held [P]laintiff's hands behind his back while another OFFICER pat searched PLAINTIFF." Id. ¶ 10. After the pat search, Plaintiff "noticed . . . that there were more marked police cars, including a green COUNTY Sheriff's car[,] parked behind [Plaintiff's] vehicle." Id. In Plaintiff's recounting of the events in the Complaint, the arrival of the County Sheriff's car appears to indicate the arrival of County Sheriff's Deputy Steven Carney ("Carney"). Id. ¶ 11.
As reflected above and below, Plaintiff regularly refers to "OFFICERS" in the Complaint. See id. ¶¶ 7-17. Elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiff states the following:
Officers Badge Numbers 5430, 5140, 5890, and 5281 . . . are members of the CITY police department and are named defendants herein in both their official and individual capacities for their actions against [P]laintiff[] taken under color of state law. OFFICERS and employees of the CITY have engaged in the acts complained of herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of the CITY.
Id. ¶ 5. In their MTD, City Defendants identify the names of the City police officers whose badge numbers are included in the list of defendants in the Complaint. MTD at 1. The officer identified as badge number 5430 is Wayne Belville ("Belville"). Id. The officer identified as badge number 5890 is Michael Birley ("Birley"). Id. The officer identified as badge number 5281 is Michael Neronde ("Neronde"). Id. The officer identified as badge number 5140 is Paul Lopez ("Lopez"). Id. Plaintiff names, in addition to these four officers, "twenty unknown officers/agents/employees of the City of Scotts Valley" as defendants. Complaint ¶ 6. In the Complaint, Plaintiff often uses the term "OFFICERS" without specifying if the term refers to Belville, Lopez, Birley, Neronde, any of the twenty unknown officers/agents/employees of the City, a combination of these, or none of these. See id. ¶¶ 7-17. Plaintiff's allegations of what took place after Carney's arrival at the scene of the detainment seem to distinguish the actions of Carney (a County Sheriff's Deputy)from the actions of the other "OFFICERS." See, e.g., id. ¶ 11. Nevertheless, it is possible that Plaintiff's use of the term "OFFICERS" may also refer at times to Carney.
Carney approached Plaintiff and told Plaintiff "to sit on the bumper of one of the police vehicles." Id. ¶ 11. The officers, without Plaintiff's permission, searched Plaintiff's vehicle, the backpack located in the front seat of Plaintiff's vehicle, and the trunk of Plaintiff's vehicle. Id. The officers "found nothing unlawful in [P]laintiff's vehicle." Id. The officers did not ask Plaintiff's permission to conduct any of the searches they carried out, and Plaintiff did not give permission. Id.
Carney told Plaintiff that "they had a search warrant to search [Plaintiff's] home." Id. ¶ 12. Carney "inquired of [P]laintiff if there was a reason why the Las Vegas police would know [Plaintiff's] name." Id. Plaintiff told Carney that Plaintiff "owned a home in Las Vegas and traveled there frequently," but that Plaintiff "had never received so much as a parking ticket in Las Vegas." Id.
The officers "placed [P]laintiff in the back seat of one of the CITY [p]olice vehicles and drove [Plaintiff] to . . . [Plaintiff's] home." Id. ¶ 13. The officers asked Plaintiff for Plaintiff's house key, which Plaintiff provided. Id. The officers "assured [P]laintiff that the search would be discreet," but the officers instead "made a great show for [P]laintiff's neighbors[,] with two OFFICERS stationed at the back of [P]laintiff's condo while another 3 or 4 OFFICERS entered [Plaintiff's] home through the front door." Id. Many of Plaintiff's neighbors "saw the commotion," including "the police vehicles parked in front of [Plaintiff's] condo and [P]laintiff sitting in the back of the patrol car." Id.
The officers then "escorted [P]laintiff into [Plaintiff's] home where they joined [Carney] and [two] other unknown OFFICERS whom [Plaintiff] had not seen previously." Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff asked Carney for the reasons why the search warrant was issued and his house was being searched. Id. Carney "gave . . . a vague explanation[,] stating that there had been a lot of 'coming and going' at [P]laintiff's home." Id. Carney "stated, falsely, that [P]laintiff's name had beenmentioned in conjunction with a marijuana arrest in Las Vegas." Id. Plaintiff "reiterated [to Carney] that while [Plaintiff] owned a home [in Las Vegas], [Plaintiff] had never had any contact with Las Vegas law enforcement or any other law enforcement agency." Id. Carney then "told [P]laintiff [that] [Plaintiff] was free to leave." Id. ¶ 15. One of the officers drove Plaintiff back to Plaintiff's car, which had remained at the Union 76 gas station on Mt. Herman road. Id.
Plaintiff filed a tort claim against City and City officers on August 7, 2019. Id. ¶ 16. This claim was denied by letter dated September 5, 2019. Id. Plaintiff also filed a tort claim against Santa Cruz County and Carney on August 12, 2019. Id. ¶ 17. These claims were denied by letter dated September 25, 2019. Id.
Plaintiff alleges six causes of action against City Defendants in the Complaint: (I) violations of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (II) violations of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, specifically regarding the liability of the City of Scotts Valley under a Monell theory; (III) violations of protections against false arrest and unlawful search as provided by Art. 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution; (IV) assault and battery; (V) intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (VI) violation of the Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1, et seq. See id. ¶¶ 18-73. Plaintiff seeks damages, attorney's fees, costs, and "other and further relief the Court deems just and proper." See id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff demands jury trial, id. ¶ 74, and seeks leave to amend or supplement the Complaint "as the identities of the unknown defendants are discovered and new evidence is uncovered," id. ¶ 15.
City Defendants filed the present motion, seeking to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against them. Plaintiff filed an opposition to City Defendants' motion. Dkt. No. 34 ("Opposition," "Opp'n"). City Defendants filed a reply to this opposition. Dkt. No. 35 ("Reply").
A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" to give the defendant "fair notice" of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but ...
To continue reading
Request your trial