Rasku v. City of Ukiah
| Decision Date | 14 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-01286-LB |
| Citation | 460 F.Supp.3d 934 |
| Parties | Christopher RASKU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF UKIAH and Kevin Murray, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
John Houston Scott, Scott Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, Izaak David Schwaiger, Schwaiger Law Firm, Sebastopol, CA, for Plaintiff.
Richard William Osman, Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Re: ECF No. 9
After plaintiff Christopher Rasku's neighbor called the police about an argument with another neighbor, Officer Kevin Murray responded, allegedly entered the plaintiff's home unlawfully, knocked the plaintiff unconscious, and punched, kneed, and kicked him, causing several broken ribs, a punctured and partially collapsed lung, nerve damage, and other injuries.1 Officers then arrested the plaintiff.2 Officer Murray allegedly wrote a police report with false statements about the encounter, including statements that the plaintiff started the encounter with him.3 Ultimately the plaintiff was offered diversion.4 In this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff sued (1) Officer Murray for unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution () and (2) the City of Ukiah for municipal liability on the ground that the City's police chief ratified Officer Murray's unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).5
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff did not plead the claims against Officer Murphy plausibly under Rule 12(b)(6) and in any event must add more allegations under Rule 12(e) about the criminal case to allow a determination about whether the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and (2) the plaintiff does not plead any facts about ratification to support a Monell claim.6 The court denies the motion to dismiss the claims against Officer Murphy because the claims are sufficiently pleaded and are not barred by Heck. The court grants the motion to dismiss the Monell claim with leave to amend.
The plaintiff, a veteran who was honorably discharged from the United States Navy, is disabled due to a back injury that he suffered during his military service.7 He is a single father, lives with his son in an apartment complex in Ukiah, and was 46 at the time that he encountered Officer Murray.8
On October 13, 2018, at about 7:00 p.m., the plaintiff left a note on his neighbor Joni Wellington's door about her dog, who had been barking all day in Ms. Wellington's absence.9 Around 10:30 p.m., Ms. Wellington returned home drunk, found the note, and confronted another neighbor about it.10 The plaintiff heard the commotion, came out of his apartment, and explained that he had left the note.11 Another neighbor announced that she had called the police, who were on their way.12 The plaintiff returned to his apartment and was standing inside the doorway behind a partly closed door when Officer Murray arrived.13
The plaintiff recognized Officer Murray from an earlier encounter when Officer Murray accused him of egging someone's car, entered the plaintiff's apartment, searched his refrigerator, and claimed that his eggs "matched" the eggs found at the scene.14 That time, the plaintiff called Officer Murray a "punk" and told him to leave his apartment immediately, and Officer Murray "has had it out for Mr. Rasku" ever since.15
When Officer Murray arrived on October 13, he told the plaintiff to take a seat on the ground outside his apartment.16 The plaintiff refused and said he would stay in his doorway.17 In response, without any exigency, Officer Murray charged at the plaintiff's door with his shoulder causing the door to fly open into the plaintiff's head and face, knocking him unconscious.18 Officer Murray entered the home and began punching, kneeing, and kicking the plaintiff.19 The plaintiff woke up with his left arm cuffed, his right arm under his body (rendering him immobile), while Officer Murray kneed him in the ribs.20 Officer Murray repeatedly punched the plaintiff in the face and delivered "numerous further knee strikes to his lower ribs".21 Officer Murray was wearing a body camera during the encounter, but in violation of department policy, did not activate it.22
Backup officers arrived minutes later, finished cuffing the plaintiff, and "picked him up from the ground by the chain of the handcuffs, raising [the plaintiff]’s arms high above his back and causing him great pain."23 The overtight handcuffs cut into the flesh on the plaintiff's wrists.24 The officers carried the plaintiff to their patrol car, and Officer Murray shut the door on the plaintiff's foot, laughed at him, and said that he was going to jail and would lose his housing.25
The plaintiff spent that night at Ukiah Valley Hospital and then was transferred to Santa Rosa Memorial hospital, where he spent the next four days.26 He suffered the following injuries:
[E]ight of Mr. Rasku's ribs were broken, four of them in multiple places. One of Mr. Rasku's lungs was punctured and would later partially collapse. Plaintiff further suffered nerve damage to his wrists, a chest wall contusion
, abrasions around his neck, and facial injuries which caused his eye to swell shut. As a result of the injury to his lungs, Mr. Rasku developed pneumonia.27
Officer Murray wrote a police report that falsely accused the plaintiff of slamming the apartment door on Officer Murray's arm and trying to punch him.28 A young boy in an adjacent apartment recorded the entry, and the video "clearly depicts the initial confrontation, and directly contradicts Officer Murray's" account.29 Prosecuting authorities charged the plaintiff with one felony count of resisting arrest in Mendocino County Superior Court.30 During the preliminary hearing, after Officer Murray allegedly perjured himself, the prosecutor offered the plaintiff diversion.31
On February 20, 2020, the plaintiff sued (1) Officer Murray for unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment () and (2) the City of Ukiah for municipal liability on the ground that the City's police chief ratified Officer Murray's unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of Monell.32 The defendants moved to dismiss.33 All parties consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction.34 The court held a hearing on May 14, 2020.35
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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, which when accepted as true, " ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "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." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ " Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
If a court dismisses a complaint, it should give leave to amend unless the "pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Yagman v. Garcetti , 852 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading that is "so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The motion "must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standards set forth in Rule 8(a)(2)." Comm. for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Rule 8 () requires "sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them." McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, "the proper test in evaluating a Rule 12(e) motion is whether the complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his responsive pleadings." Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988). "The rule is aimed at unintelligibility rather than lack of detail and is only appropriate when the defendants cannot understand the substance of the claim asserted."
Griffin v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Courts are instructed not to resolve "merits issues, especially fact-sensitive questions, on Rule 12(e) m...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. City of San Jose
...without more, is insufficient to support a § 1983 claim.” Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2004). See Rasku v. City of Ukiah, 460 F.Supp.3d 934, 945 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (same); Estate of Adomako, 2018 WL 2234179 at *3 (“A police department's ‘mere failure to discipline its officers d......