Roberto Jose Cota v. Santa Ana Police Dep't
| Docket Number | 8:21-cv-01774-MWF-JDE |
| Decision Date | 17 June 2022 |
| Parties | ROBERTO JOSE COTA, Plaintiff, v. SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
ORDER WITHDRAWING REPORT (Dkt. 23) AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND THE REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED
On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff Roberto Jose Cota (“Plaintiff”), a pretrial detainee at Orange County Jail, proceeding pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2, “IFP Request”), constructively filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983” or “§ 1983”) against Defendants Santa Ana Police Department (“SAPD”), David Valentin, J Gallardo, Gus Morroyoqui, and John Doe.[1] Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). The Complaint alleges on May 28, 2018, the defendants unreasonably seized and detained Plaintiff for over three hours, in violation of his Fourth Amendment and state law rights. Complaint ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff averred that he was currently detained for “events not being alleged in this Complaint or any court of law that occurred at a later date.” Id. ¶ 4.
On November 23, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based upon the statute of limitations. Dkt. 7. In response, Plaintiff argued his claims are not time barred because he is entitled to statutory and equitable tolling. Dkt. 8, ¶¶ 7-8. Separately, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9), which the Court granted. See Dkt 11; Dkt. 12, as corrected, Dkt. 16 (“FAC”). The FAC replaced Defendant “John Doe” with Defendant Investigator Maiocco.
After screening the FAC, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the FAC be dismissed, finding the Section 1983 claims to be barred by the statute of limitations. Dkt. 18 (“First Report”). Plaintiff filed objections to the First Report, asserting for the first time that his arrest and current detention stem directly from the allegedly unlawful search and seizure that comprise the basis of his civil rights suit, and requested leave to amend to add additional allegations. Dkt. 19 at 5-6 (“First Objections”). Based on Plaintiff's new allegations, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint and withdrew the First Report. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff thereafter filed the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 21 (“SAC”).
After screening the SAC, the Court issued a second Report and Recommendation on May 23, 2022, recommending that Plaintiff's SAC be dismissed as time barred and that Plaintiff be denied additional leave to amend. Dkt. 23 (“Second Report”). Plaintiff filed objections to the Second Report, reasserting that his claims were not time barred and requesting the Court grant a stay of his Section 1983 claims pending resolution of his state criminal proceedings. Dkt. 24 (“Second Objections”). He also requested leave to amend to add additional allegations. Id. at 10.
Because Plaintiff, in his Second Objections, seeks different relief from that contained in the SAC, including seeking a stay of proceedings, in order to fully consider Plaintiff's new request, the Court hereby WITHDRAWS the Second Report (Dkt. 23) and Orders Plaintiff to show cause why the SAC should not be dismissed and the stay request denied for the reasons discussed below, following screening of the SAC under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a).
The Court summarizes the allegations contained in the SAC as follows. On May 28, 2018, Plaintiff, a tow truck operator, was stationed in a parking lot in Santa Ana, California, when he heard “sounds that clearly sounded like gunshots” coming from a nearby parking lot. SAC ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff drove to the nearby parking lot and observed a group of people surrounding an injured victim. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff then began rendering aid to the victim and instructed a bystander to call 911 and activate Plaintiff's tow truck emergency lights so as to signal the victim's location to emergency services. Id. The fire department arrived at the parking lot within minutes and began rendering aid to the victim, at which point Plaintiff returned to his tow truck. Id. ¶ 4.
Shortly thereafter, SAPD officers arrived and began interviewing witnesses. SAC ¶ 4. Plaintiff approached Defendant Gallardo, an SAPD officer, and notified him that his vehicle had a dash camera that may have captured relevant footage. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant Gallardo told Plaintiff he would be interested in interviewing him and asked Plaintiff to “wait for a few minutes, ” which he did. Id. Defendant Gallardo briefly interviewed Plaintiff near his tow truck, and at 10:15 p.m., before completing the interview, instructed him to move his tow truck and to turn it off so as to not waste gas. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges he felt “compelled” to comply with Defendant Gallardo's orders and accordingly moved his tow truck and turned it off without protest, believing he “could not leave.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff claims Defendant Gallardo never told him that he was permitted to leave and never provided him an explanation for his detention. Id. Plaintiff further alleges he had not witnessed the shooting and had been lawfully in the area. Id.
Later that night, Defendant Maiocco, an SAPD crime scene investigator, asked to inspect the physical aspects of Plaintiff's truck's dash camera, which Plaintiff obliged. SAC ¶ 9. Defendant Maiocco also requested to review the footage stored on Plaintiff's dash camera in Plaintiff's presence, but Plaintiff refused. Id. ¶ 10. Defendant Maiocco returned the dash camera to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff placed it in the truck's center console. Id. Defendant Maiocco then “ordered” Plaintiff to call his boss and notify him that the police would not “let [him] go” until the detective finished interviewing all the witnesses. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff sat at the scene and waited “for a few hours” until Defendant Morroyoqui, an SAPD detective, arrived at the parking lot and began interviewing witnesses, including Plaintiff. Id.
During his interview, Plaintiff informed Defendant Morroyoqui that he had observed a white vehicle speeding away as he initially approached the parking lot and that his tow truck's dash camera may have captured footage of the white vehicle. SAC ¶ 12. Defendant Morroyoqui asked Plaintiff if he could accompany him to another location to identify a vehicle, and Plaintiff, “feeling compelled, ” agreed. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff followed Defendant Morroyoqui's instruction to leave his tow truck at the parking lot where it would be “safe.” Id. ¶ 14. Defendant Morroyoqui then drove Plaintiff to a different location; they were away for about 20 minutes. Id. ¶ 15. Upon returning to the parking lot, Defendant Morroyoqui asked to examine Plaintiff's dash camera. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff felt “compelled” to show Defendant Morroyoqui the dash camera, but after looking for the dash camera in his tow truck, he could not find it. Id.
At 2:12 a.m. the following morning, after having informed Defendant Morroyoqui that he could not find his dash camera, Defendant Morroyoqui told Plaintiff he was “allowed to go home.” SAC ¶ 17. Before returning home, however, Plaintiff asked Defendant Maiocco and some other officers if they had seen anyone take his dash camera from his tow truck. Id. Defendant Maiocco and the officers informed Plaintiff they had not. Id. As Plaintiff was leaving the parking lot, he asked another officer if the officer had seen anyone remove his dash camera from his tow truck. Id. ¶ 18. The officer told Plaintiff that the police department has “policies and procedures” that require them to give “receipts” anytime they seize property. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff requested such a receipt, but the officer informed Plaintiff the police department could not provide him with a receipt for property the department had not seized. Id. Plaintiff then drove home. Id. ¶ 20.
On May 29, 2018 at around 2:30 a.m., Plaintiff arrived home. SAC ¶ 21. About four hours later, he received a call from Defendant Morroyoqui advising that SAPD officers were conducting follow-up interviews and he “needed” to drive to the SAPD station. Id. Plaintiff complied “without protest.” Id. Plaintiff arrived at the police station at around 7:00 a.m. and met with Defendant Morroyoqui, who brought him into an interrogation room. Id. ¶ 22. Defendant Morroyoqui questioned him about the events that had occurred at the parking lot the night before and asked why Plaintiff had not told the officers that he and the victim worked at the same towing company. Id. Defendant Maiocco then entered the interrogation room holding an electronic tablet. Id. ¶ 23. He made “verbal threats” to Plaintiff and told him that the police had video footage showing that he and the victim worked at the same towing company and had been together hours before the shooting. Id. Defendant Maiocco then showed Plaintiff footage from his dash camera on the tablet despite having said the night prior that the police had not seized his dash camera. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff believes Defendant Maiocco seized his dash camera on May 28, 2018 while officers detained him and conducted a warrantless search of the camera by viewing its contents sometime on May 29, 2018. Id. ¶ 35.
After playing the dash camera footage for Plaintiff, Defendant Maiocco said he would “make sure Plaintiff goes to prison for life, ” and that the dash camera footage is “all he needs.” SAC ¶ 24. At Defendant Morroyoqui's request, Plaintiff gave his cell phone and passwords, and Defendant Morroyoqui then arrested and escorted him to a holding...
To continue reading
Request your trial