Pontillo v. Stanislaus Cnty.
| Decision Date | 08 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:16-cv-01834-DAD-SKO,1:16-cv-01834-DAD-SKO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | ALEO JOHN PONTILLO II, Plaintiff, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY; BIRGIT FLADAGER; DAVID HARRIS; JON REINECCIUS; STEVE JACOBSON; ALICE MIMMS; ADAM CHRISTIANSON; CITY OF MODESTO; DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This action arises out of the state court prosecution of plaintiff—then a bail bondsman—on criminal charges related to allegations of kidnapping and detaining several bail clients. On March 27, 2017, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 24.) On April 11, 2017, defendants Stanislaus County, Birgit Fladager, David Harris, Steve Jacobson, Alice Mimms, and Adam Christianson (collectively, the "Stanislaus County defendants") moved to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. No. 26.) On April 13, 2017 and April 25, 2017, the City of Modesto and defendant Jon Reineccius also respectively moved to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28.) On May 23, 2017, plaintiff filed oppositions to each of the motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 30, 31, 32.) On May 30, 2017, the City of Modesto and the Stanislaus County defendants filed replies. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34.) No reply was filed on behalf of defendant Reineccius. The motions to dismiss came before the court for hearing on June 6, 2017. Plaintiff appeared1 on his own behalf, attorney John Whitefleet appeared on behalf of the Stanislaus County defendants, attorney Blake Loebs appeared on behalf of the City of Modesto, and Deputy Attorney General Matthew Roman appeared on behalf of defendant Reineccius. (Doc. No. 37.) For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss will be granted and the FAC will be dismissed with leave to amend.
As noted, this civil rights action stems from an investigation into and criminal charges brought against plaintiff, a former bail bondsman, who was accused of kidnapping and extorting money from his bail clients. (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) In his FAC, plaintiff alleges as follows. Defendant Jacobsen, an investigator for the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office, first contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") concerning plaintiff's alleged activities in January 2007. (Id.) The criminal investigation continued through December 2010, and ultimately culminated in the prosecution of defendant by the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office, which ended in December 2014. Defendant Fladager was the District Attorney for Stanislaus County, and defendant Harris was a Deputy District Attorney. Defendant Mimms was a Deputy County Counsel for Stanislaus County at the time, while defendant Christianson was the Stanislaus County Sheriff. Finally, defendant Reineccius was an investigator for the California Department of Insurance involved in the criminal investigation of plaintiff.
Plaintiff's offices and residence were searched by defendants or those under their direction on multiple occasions. The first of these searches occurred on December 23, 2008, and included law enforcement officers from the FBI, the City of Modesto, the California Department of Insurance, and the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office. (Id. at 6.) This search was conducted pursuant to a warrant which, according to plaintiff, was obtained by way of "false declarations designed to mislead the court," and resulted in the seizure of all of plaintiff's client files. (Id.) Plaintiff's offices were again searched on February 3, 2010, again pursuant to awarrant which was issued based on "false declarations." (Id.) During this second search, plaintiff and his employees "were handcuffed and held at gunpoint and threatened with violence," along with being "assaulted and battered." (Id.) On March 11, 2010, defendants Fladager, Reineccius, and Jacobson "caused plaintiff's bank accounts to be seized," again according to plaintiff in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. at 7.) Finally, plaintiff's office was searched a third time on May 5, 2011, when defendants drilled out the front door lock of the office door in order to serve the warrant. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that $17,500 was seized from his office during this search and was never returned to him. (Id.)
The United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Eastern District of California presented the evidence derived from the criminal investigation to a federal grand jury in November 2010, following which the USAO elected not to pursue charges against plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) Subsequently, on September 14, 2011, plaintiff was arrested and charged by the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office with kidnapping, extortion, and violations of the California Insurance Code. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff was detained until October 3, 2011 in unconstitutional conditions of confinement, at which time he posted bail of $1.3 million. (Id.) According to plaintiff, an excessive bail was set "based on a false declaration" from defendants Harris and Reineccius. (Id.) On December 5, 2011, plaintiff's bail license was suspended by the state of California, purportedly due to the actions of defendants Reineccius, Jacobson, Fladager, Christianson, and Mimms. (Id. at 8-9.)
Plaintiff's trial on the criminal charges took place in the Stanislaus County Superior Court and lasted from July 14, 2014 to December 10, 2014. (Id. at 9.) A number of the original charges were dismissed during the seventh week of trial, according to the FAC, after defendants Fladager and Harris were found to have intentionally failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Id.) Ultimately, plaintiff was acquitted by the jury of the remaining charges on December 10, 2014. (Id. at 10.) This civil rights action was thereafter filed on December 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that he was deprived of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
/////Amendments.2 (Doc. No. 24 at 10.) Plaintiff also alleges Monell claims against the County of Stanislaus and the City of Modesto. (Id.)
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 plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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 (2009).
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). In general, pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, "it demands more thanan unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff "can prove facts which 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).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001).
Here, defendants have moved to dismiss the FAC in large part on the grounds that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See Doc. Nos. 26, 27, 28.) Plaintiff argues that the continuing violations doctrine applies in this case, and his claims are therefore not barred by the statute of limitations. (See Doc. Nos. 30, 31, 32.) Defendants' arguments are, in large part, persuasive.
Section 1983 does not contain a specific statute of limitations. Accordingly, federal courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). California has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Stavropoulos v. Superior Court, 141 Cal. App. 4th 190, 197 (2006). When a cause of action accrues, however, is determined by federal law. Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382, 386 (9th Cir. 201...
To continue reading
Request your trial