Murguia v. Langdon, 1:19-cv-00942-DAD-BAM
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-00942-DAD-BAM |
| Parties | JOSE MURGUIA, for himself and for the Estates of Mason and Maddox Murguia, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER LANGDON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Before the court are four motions to dismiss filed by defendants City of Visalia and Officer Hernandez (Doc. No. 38) defendant First Assembly of God of Visalia (“First Assembly”) (Doc. No. 40), defendants Cerda, Lewis Torres, and County of Tulare (collectively “county defendants”) (Doc. No. 41), and defendants Davis Garcia, Valencia, and City of Tulare (collectively “city defendants”) (Doc. No. 43). Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the motions were taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. Nos. 39, 42, 44.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the motions to dismiss.
The factual background of this case has been discussed at length in the court's prior order granting defendants' previous motions to dismiss. (Doc. No. 35.) In its prior order, the court synthesized plaintiffs' original 131-page complaint with considerable difficulty. Indeed, in dismissing plaintiffs' original complaint with leave to amend the court cautioned plaintiffs to comply with Rule 8's requirements for a short and plain statement of their claims showing that they are entitled to relief, or risk having an amended complaint dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 35 at 20.) Despite the court's instruction, plaintiffs' first amended complaint (“FAC”) is 98-pages in length and asserts thirty-six causes of action. (Doc. No. 36.) In any event, the court will only briefly repeat plaintiffs' undeniably tragic factual allegations here.
Plaintiff Jose Murguia and defendant Heather Langdon married in 2004 and had three children. (FAC at ¶ 24.) Following reports of domestic violence committed by Langdon against Jose, the state court issued a TRO against Langdon on January 5, 2015 and then “awarded sole physical and legal custody of their three children to Jose.” (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26.) The couple terminated their marriage in April of 2015. (Id. at ¶ 27.) However, in Spring of 2017 plaintiff Murguia and defendant Langdon started seeing each other again and Langdon become pregnant with twins. (Id. at ¶ 31.) On January 12, 2018, Langdon gave birth to twin boys, Mason and Maddox, but there was no formal custody order for the twins. (Id. at ¶ 33.)
On December 5, 2018, defendant Langdon was experiencing an ongoing and escalating mental health crisis. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Defendant Langdon, plaintiff Murguia, and their twin infants (“decedents”) had been living together in plaintiff Murguia's home with the couple's three older children since August of 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff Murguia called 911 on December 5, 2018 and requested psychological help for Langdon. (Id.) The Tulare County Sheriff's officers were the first to respond. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The officers did not take defendant Langdon into custody. Instead, plaintiffs' neighbor took Langdon and the decedents to the First Assembly church. (Id.) Shortly after Langdon and the decedents arrived at First Assembly, the church called the Visalia Police Department (“VPD”). (Id. at ¶ 20.) Rather than taking Langdon into custody or placing her under a § 5150 hold, the VPD officers drove Langdon and the decedents to a shelter for women. (Id.) The shelter refused to admit Langdon because “Langdon was disruptive and in the shelter's opinion, acting ‘crazy.'” (Id. at ¶ 21.) The shelter then called the Tulare Police Department (“TPD”) twice in order to get help dealing with Langdon. (Id.) Allegedly, the TPD called Child Welfare Services (“CWS”) and “falsely told them that Langdon had gone to a hospital for a psych evaluation and that the hospital concluded that Langdon did not meet the criteria for an involuntary commitment.” (Id.) (emphasis in original.) CWS told the TPD officers that it could take custody of the decedents, but only if Langdon was taken into custody. (Id. at ¶ 22.) The TPD officers refused to take Langdon into custody. (Id.) Believing that Langdon was not capable of finding her own shelter, the TPD officers arranged for a motel to give a free night's lodging to her and the decedents. (Id.) The TPD officers then drove defendant Langdon and the decedents to the motel, where defendant Langdon drowned the decedents sometime thereafter. (Id. at ¶ 23.)
On June 30, 2020, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' original complaint but also granted plaintiffs leave to amend. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiffs filed their FAC on July 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 36.) On August 20, 2020, both defendant City of Visalia and defendant First Assembly each filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. Nos. 38, 40.) On September 3, 2020, the county defendants also filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 41) and on September 18, 2020, city defendants did the same (Doc. No. 43). Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to City of Visalia, First Assembly, and county defendants' motions on September 22, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 45, 46, 47) and their opposition to city defendants' motion on October 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 54). County defendants, City of Visalia, and First Assembly each filed replies on September 29, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 51) and city defendants filed their reply on October 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 55).
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Though Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). “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.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff “can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the 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 (1983).
Defendants City of Visalia and Officer Hernandez, First Assembly, county defendants, and city defendants each move to dismiss plaintiffs' respective claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Below, the court will address the pending motions with respect to plaintiffs federal and state law claims separately.
Plaintiffs bring twelve separate federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their constitutional rights. (FAC at ¶¶ 119-339) (claims 1-12.) Plaintiffs' twenty-four additional claims are all brought under state law. (FAC at ¶¶ 340-502) (claims 13-36.) Plaintiffs' federal claims are brought against both the individual defendants as well as against City of Visalia, City of Tulare, and County of Tulare pursuant to Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). As was the case when the court issued its previous order (Doc. No. 35), “the sole issue posed by the pending motions to dismiss this [case] is whether plaintiffs have adequately alleged that any of the individual defendants' conduct deprived them of a constitutional right.” (Id. at 10.) The court concluded in its prior order that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a constitutional violation in their original complaint. With respect to the FAC, the court finds that plaintiffs have again failed to adequately allege constitutional violations against the individual defendants. Moreover, because a Monell claim requires an underlying constitutional violation as an essential element of the claim, the court concludes plaintiffs' Monell claims against the municipal entity defendants must also be dismissed. The court will address the federal claims brought against each group of defendants in turn below.
1. Claims Against the Individual Defendants
Plaintiffs bring the same federal claims against each individual defendant. Defendants move to dismiss those claims, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, plaintiffs bring their claims under § 1983, alleging violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, and violations of their First Amendment right to familial association. To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege and ultimately show that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right....
To continue reading
Request your trial