Rosales v. Cnty. of San Diego
| Decision Date | 05 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 19-CV-2303 JLS (LL) |
| Citation | 511 F.Supp.3d 1070 |
| Parties | Dolores ROSALES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ; Sheriff William D. Gore, an individual; Deputy Terence York, an individual; Deputy Brandon Delima, an individual; Deputy Evan McCormick, an individual, Deputy Nicholas Adams, an individual; Deputy Eric Cottrell, Jr., an individual, Deputy Carl Fielstra, an individual; Deputy Brian Schaefer, an individual; Deputy Christopher Perez, an individual; Sergeant Dwain Washington, an individual, Deputy Ronald Bushnell, an individual; Deputy Steven Fealy, an individual; Deputy Scott Rosall, an individual; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Jesus Eduardo Arias, Law Offices of Jesus Eduardo Arias, Cerritos, CA, for Plaintiff.
Sylvia Soliman Aceves, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, (2) DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE COUNTY AND SHERIFF GORE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Presently before the Court is Defendants Terence York; Brandon Delima; Evan McCormick; Nicholas Adams; Eric Cottrell, Jr.; Carl Fielstra; Brian Schaefer; Christopher Perez; Dwain Washington; Ronald Bushnell; Steven Fealy; and Scott Rossall's (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and to Strike Portions Thereof ( ECF No. 14), as well as Plaintiff Dolores Rosales’ Response in Opposition to ( ECF No. 15) and the Individual Defendants’ Reply in Support of ( ECF No. 16) the Individual Motion. Also before the Court is Defendants County of San Diego (the "County") and Sheriff William D. Gore's ("Sheriff Gore") (collectively, the "County Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Cty. Mot.," ECF No. 20), as well as Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to ("Cty. Opp'n," ECF No. 21) and the County Defendants’ Reply in Support of ("Cty. Reply," ECF No. 23) the County Motion.
The Court took these matters under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). See ECF Nos. 17, 22. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl.," ECF No. 1), the Parties’ arguments, and the law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as set forth below; DENIES the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Strike; and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as set forth below.
Plaintiff brings suit both individually and on behalf of her son, Marco Napoles, as his successor in interest, against all Defendants. See Compl. ¶¶ 6–9. Specifically, as to the Individual Defendants, or a subset of them, Plaintiff brings four federal claims under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code for violations of Plaintiff and Napoles’ constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. See Compl. ¶¶ 71–93 (), ¶¶ 110–12 (claim eleven).1 Plaintiff also alleges four claims under California law against the Individual Defendants, or some of them, for negligence; violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 52.1 (hereinafter the "Bane Act"); false imprisonment; and battery. See id. ¶¶ 121–32 (). Additionally, Plaintiff brings six federal claims under Section 1983 against the County Defendants, see id. ¶¶ 71–79 (claim one), ¶¶ 86–120 (), ¶¶ 110–12 (claim eleven); and two claims against the County Defendants under California law for negligence and violation of the Bane Act, see id. ¶¶ 121–47 ().
On August 16, 2018, Napoles’ vehicle broke down, prompting Napoles to walk to a gas station in Fallbrook, California. See Compl. ¶ 28. Upon arriving at the gas station, Napoles entered the gas station's convenience store, where an employee allowed him to charge his cell phone. See id. ¶ 30. Napoles was at the gas station from around 2 a.m. to around 4 a.m., chatting with customers and convenience store employees. See id. ¶¶ 30, 32.
At around 4:30 a.m., a new employee, presumably the gas station's manager, arrived and requested that Napoles wait outside near the gas pumps or parking area. See id. ¶ 32. Napoles went outside, see id. , but would go back inside the store periodically, presumably to check his charging cell phone. See id. ¶ 33. The manager then called the police to report a customer—Napoles—that " ‘was just standing in the store and not leaving after being told to leave.’ " Id. The manager informed the dispatch operator that she was unaware of any weapons in the customer's possession. See id.
At approximately 4:50 a.m., San Diego County Sheriff's ("SDS") Deputy Terence York arrived at the gas station. See id. ¶ 35. Deputy York approached Napoles near the gas pumps, where Napoles informed Deputy York of Napoles’ broken-down vehicle. See id. Napoles then provided Deputy York with his California identification card, which Deputy York used to check Napoles’ record, learning that Napoles had no criminal record. See id. ¶ 36. Deputy York allowed Napoles to use Deputy York's cell phone to call friends or family to pick him up. See id. ¶ 37.
Deputy York denied Napoles’ request to continue to wait near the gas pumps and told Napoles to leave the gas station, because the manager did not want him anywhere near the store. See id. ¶¶ 40–41. Napoles walked around the corner, and Deputy York went back inside his patrol vehicle. See id. ¶ 41. Several minutes after Napoles left, Deputy York observed Napoles again walking near the gas pumps, presumably toward the adjacent sidewalk. See id. ¶ 42. Deputy York approached Napoles, commanded Napoles to remove his backpack in a raised voice, and attempted to submit Napoles by pulling his arm. See id.
While this was happening, SDS Deputy Brandon Delima arrived on the scene, and Deputy Delima assisted Deputy York with throwing Napoles to the ground while both deputies yelled at Napoles to " ‘stop resisting.’ " Id. ¶ 43. A third SDS deputy, Deputy Carl Fielstra, approached to assist Deputies York and Delima. See id. After throwing Napoles to the ground, Deputies York, Delima, and Fielstra "plac[ed] their bodies on top of Napoles" and "deliberately hit him with punches." Id. ¶ 44. Napoles was unarmed and nonviolent. See id. He asked the deputies for help and requested that they stop using force. See id. Instead, Deputy Delima deployed his Taser into Napoles "[a]pproximately more than [six] times, to his chest and to his back," on both dart mode and drive-stun mode. Id. ¶¶ 44–45. Napoles screamed for help and asked the deputies to stop tasing him. See id. ¶ 45. The deputies’ body cams fell off and ended up pointing away from the scene during the incident while continuing to record audio, but a bystander recorded part of the incident on a cell phone. See id. ; see also id. Ex. 1.
Deputy York claimed to have been bitten on his thumb by Napoles. See id. ¶ 46. Napoles denied biting him. See id. ¶ 47. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Deputy York had been bitten several days earlier by a dog that he was training as a K9 officer. See id. Napoles, now handcuffed,3 began yelling, " ‘please help me ... please call 911, please help ... they are going to kill me.’ " See id. ¶ 48. Deputies York, Delima, and Fielstra then requested additional deputies and a WRAP restraint device. See id. ¶ 49. Deputies York, Delima, and Fielstra ignored Napoles’ pleas for help. See id.
SDS Deputy Evan McCormick responded to the request for backup, and, when he arrived at the scene, he applied "all of his body weight upon [Napoles’] body," "applying intense pressure with his knees and his 300 pounds body weight" to Napoles’ chest. Id. ¶ 50. Deputy McCormick then used an air choke hold force technique on Napoles that put pressure on the carotid artery, obstructing Napoles’ ability to breathe and causing him "excruciating pain." Id. ¶¶ 50–51. Napoles asked for help multiple times and said, " ‘Excuse me, I need to stand up,’ " and " ‘I am f ... ... dying.’ " Id. ¶ 52. Napoles lost consciousness moments after Deputy McCormick initiated the choke hold. See id. ¶ 53. Nonetheless, Deputy McCormick shouted at him to "stop resisting." Id.
SDS Deputies Nicholas Adams, Christopher Perez, Brian Schaefer, and Eric Cottrell, Jr., arrived on the scene and, along with Deputies McCormick and Delima, "plac[ed] their body weight on top of [Napoles’] body." See id. ¶ 54. "Napoles had at some point [four] deputies using their knees and bodies on top of him" before they started to apply the WRAP restraint device. Id. SDS Sergeant Dwain Washington was present on the scene for Deputy McCormick's carotid artery choke hold and the deputies’ subsequent application of the WRAP device but did nothing to intervene or stop the deputies. See id. ¶ 58.
Paramedics from the North County Fire Protection District arrived on the scene to treat Deputy York and asked the deputies if Napoles needed medical assistance and if they could evaluate his medical condition. See id. ¶ 59. The deputies did not allow the paramedics to evaluate Napoles without the WRAP device. See id. ¶ 60. Deputy McCormick placed a spit bag over Napoles’ head before paramedics placed Napoles in the ambulance. See id. ¶ 61. SDS Deputies Steven Fealy and Scott Rossall boarded the ambulance and "did not allow the paramedics to medically evaluate and treat Napoles unrestrained." Id. ¶ 62. Deputies Fealy and Rossall allowed paramedics to remove the WRAP device "only after the paramedics confirmed that [Napoles] was not breathing." Id. Deputies Fealy and Rossall tried to handcuff Napoles while Napoles was experiencing a cardiac arrest
. See id.
At the hospital, the paramedics...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wang v. Wolf
-
Vicki Chang v. Vanderwielen
...seizure.”) (quoting Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006)); and Rosales v. Cnty. of San Diego, 511 F.Supp.3d 1070, 1091 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (“Claims for the denial of medical assistance after an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.”). But see J.......
-
Roberts v. NYE Cnty. Sheriff's Office
... ... proper.” Wood , 879 F.2d at 595 (quoting ... Ward v. County of San Diego, ... 791 F.2d 1329, 1332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Under the facts and ... circumstances alleged, the Court finds no reasonable officer ... to expose ... the plaintiff to such risks without regard to the ... consequences to the plaintiff.” Rosales v. County ... of San Diego , 511 F.Supp.3d 1070, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2021), ... citing Grubbs , 92 F.3d at 899 (internal quotation ... ...
-
Keith v. The City of San Diego
...looks only at the complaint, and not to additional facts alleged in an opposition brief. See, e.g., Rosales v. Cnty. of San Diego, 511 F.Supp.3d 1070, 1097 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (explaining that “[g]enerally, material beyond the pleadings may not be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss”); ......