Santana v. Cnty. of Yuba

Decision Date18 August 2016
Docket NumberNo. 2:15-cv-00794-KJM-EFB,2:15-cv-00794-KJM-EFB
PartiesJESSE I. SANTANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF YUBA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

JESSE I. SANTANA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF YUBA, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00794-KJM-EFB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

August 18, 2016


ORDER

Attorneys Jesse Santana and David Vasquez allege they were tried for crimes they did not commit because local prosecutors, a judge, another attorney, and Yuba County itself wanted to prevent Santana's appointment to the Sutter County Superior Court. Santana and Vasquez are Hispanic, and they attribute the prosecution to racial discrimination. The defendants move to dismiss Santana's and Vasquez's first amended complaint.

The court held a hearing on June 17, 2016. Jaime Leanos appeared for Santana and Vasquez. Jeffrey Norlander appeared for Yuba County, Patrick McGrath, John Vacek, Mary Barr, and Gene Stober. John Whitesides appeared for Randall Elliot. Michael Fox appeared for Judge Julia Scrogin. Wendy Green appeared for Timothy Evans.

The motions are granted in part.

I. ALLEGATIONS

The defendants move to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under that rule, the court assumes the events alleged actually occurred. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Santana and Vasquez allege as follows.

Page 2

A. Santana's Judicial Candidacy

In 2007, Jesse Santana, who is Hispanic, was a prominent attorney whose law practice primarily entailed the representation of criminal defendants. First Am. Compl. ¶ 44, ECF No. 40. A vacancy opened on the Sutter County Superior Court bench, and Santana submitted his application to the Governor's Office for a judicial appointment to the vacant seat. Id. He had strong support among the local Hispanic community, which made up about a quarter of both Sutter County and the neighboring Yuba County. Id. ¶¶ 44-45. David Vasquez, another local attorney, was among his supporters. Id. ¶ 44.

Despite the substantial Hispanic population in Sutter and Yuba counties, the membership of neither the Yuba nor Sutter County Superior Court bench had included a Hispanic judge. Id. ¶ 45. This disparity is, Santana and Vasquez allege, the result of a racist custom and practice within the Yuba and Sutter County administrations. Id. ¶ 46. This custom and practice extends to the Yuba County District Attorney's Office, whose attorneys and investigators have a policy to resist the judicial appointment of any ethnic minority group, including Hispanic judges. Id. ¶ 46.

In 2007, only one other application had been filed for the vacancy on the Sutter County Superior Court, by Sutter County Deputy District Attorney Susan Green, who is Caucasian and not Hispanic. Id. Green had the support of several friends in the Yuba County District Attorney's Office. Id. Their support was attributable to a policy of keeping the local judiciary entirely White Caucasian, and they feared that the Governor's office would appoint Santana in an effort to add diversity to the local judiciary. Id. ¶ 47. They knew the Governor would make a decision in June 2008, so in late 2007, they agreed on a plan to thwart Santana's appointment by filing false criminal charges against him. See id. ¶ 48. They knew that if Santana became the object of a criminal investigation, he would be disqualified. Id. ¶ 49.

B. Santana and Vasquez Negotiate a Civil Release for Socorro Acevedo

In November 2007, Socorro Acevedo met with Marysville Police Detective Randall Elliott to report that her boss, Joseph Griesa, had sexually assaulted and physically abused her. Id. ¶ 30. Acevedo was a minor at the time. Id. She showed Elliott text messages and bruises to corroborate her allegations, but Elliott thought the case would be difficult to prosecute and recommended she pursue a civil claim against Griesa instead. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.

Page 3

Acevedo sought out an attorney: Jesse Santana. Id. ¶ 33. He confirmed that she could file a civil case against Griesa. Id. ¶ 34. Acevedo wanted to take care of the matter privately because she wanted to avoid testifying in court, she didn't want her father and brother to find out about it, and she wanted to put the events behind her and move away to college. Id. ¶ 33. Santana confirmed the matter could probably be resolved privately with the approval of a judge and agreed to represent Acevedo without charge. Id. ¶¶ 34-35.

Meanwhile, Detective Elliott phoned Griesa to tell him about Acevedo's allegations and advised him to hire a lawyer. Id. ¶ 36. Griesa hired David Vasquez. Id. Vasquez and Griesa discussed the possibility of a criminal or civil case against Griesa. Id. ¶ 38. Vasquez explained that the District Attorney may be less likely to prosecute him criminally if he reached a prompt civil settlement agreement with Acevedo. Id. Griesa authorized Vasquez to pursue a civil settlement and deposited $50,000 into Vasquez's client trust account so Vasquez could use the money to make a good-faith settlement offer. Id.

In November and December 2007, Santana and Vasquez negotiated a civil settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 40. A tentative agreement to settle the case for $100,000 was solidified, and draft releases were prepared. Id. Eventually, the final version of the release included the following language:

In consideration of the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), Socorro Acevedo will request that criminal charges not be filed against Joe Griesa, and will exercise any privilege she may have pursuant to law, not to testify in any proceedings, and she will not file any civil action, arising out of the underlying facts, against Joe Griesa. Joe Griesa will pay $50,000.00 now and the remaining $50,000.00 within 60 days. In exchange, Socorro Acevedo forever releases and discharges Joe Griesa from all claims, demands, actions, and causes of action of every kind and nature in any way related to Joe Griesa's interactions with Socorro Acevedo.

Id. Everyone understood a judge would have to approve this agreement in light of Acevedo's youth. Id.

Vasquez told Detective Elliott about the proposed agreement, and Elliott generally approved of this resolution. Id. ¶ 41. Vasquez also told Yuba County Deputy District Attorney Melanie Bendorf about the proposal. Id. Santana likewise contacted Elliott. Id. He explained Acevedo's motivations, including her desire to keep the matter out of public view and put the case behind her, and he asked to be present if Elliott interviewed Acevedo. Id. Griesa and Elliott also spoke about the proposed release and $100,000 payment, and Elliott suggested Griesa get a second opinion from another attorney, Timothy Evans. Id.

Page 4

C. The Criminal Investigation and Prosecution of Santana and Vasquez

In December 2007, Susan Green (Santana's competitor for judicial appointment), Patrick McGrath (Yuba County District Attorney), Melanie Bendorf (the Yuba County Deputy District Attorney mentioned above), Julia Scrogin (a Judge on the Yuba County Superior Court), and Timothy Evans (the attorney recommended by Elliott) met over lunch. Id. ¶ 48. McGrath proposed a plan to investigate and prosecute bribery charges against Santana. See id. ¶¶ 48-50. The group agreed they would falsely characterize the settlement negotiations between Acevedo, Griesa, and their attorneys as clandestine attempts at persuading Acevedo to withhold information from investigators, prosecutors, and the courts in return for money. Id. ¶ 50. Green, McGrath, Bendorf, and Scrogin ignored their understanding and evidence showing

• Acevedo had not agreed to withhold information; rather, she agreed not to file a civil case, to ask that the criminal prosecution end, and to exercise any privilege she had against testifying;

• Santana had informed Elliott that Acevedo would agree to an interview with the detective and asked only that her attorney be present;

• The settlement negotiations were not secret, considering that Vasquez had informed Elliott and Bendorf about a potential civil settlement agreement; and

• The negotiations between Acevedo, Griesa, and their attorneys were consistent with a longstanding practice among police, prosecutors, and private attorneys, who had in the past facilitated similar agreements between the victims and perpetrators of sexual assault at a victim's request.

To ensure this investigation and prosecution appeared bona fide, the group agreed Vasquez would also be charged. Id. ¶ 50. Soon after this meeting, Green, McGrath, Bendorf, and Scrogin sought out the assistance of John Vacek, another Deputy District Attorney, and of Mary Barr and Gene Stober, investigators, who all agreed to join in the plan. Id. ¶ 48.

Elliott filed a report of his investigation, but made no recommendation on whether criminal charges should be filed against Griesa. Id. ¶ 42. He noted his understanding that Griesa and Acevedo had negotiated a settlement agreement with Santana's and Vasquez's help, and he recommended that the District Attorney's Office consider bribery charges against the two attorneys. Id. His report

Page 5

included the false assertion that Santana had instructed Acevedo not to speak to him. Id. Santana and Vasquez believe the other defendants pressured him into including this false assertion, or at least encouraged the misstatement. Id. The District Attorney's Office began investigating possible bribery charges against Santana and Vasquez. Id.

In the meantime, Acevedo and her mother had signed the civil release, but Griesa did not sign it because he had no guarantee against a criminal prosecution. Id. ¶ 43. Acevedo had also reconsidered her decision after her father learned about the alleged abuse and told her he wanted a criminal prosecution. Id. Santana informed Detective Elliott and Vasquez of these developments, and Vasquez returned the $50,000 to Griesa. Id. Acevedo also hired a new lawyer, Michael Trezza. Id.

A search warrant was obtained for Santana's and Vasquez's law offices, and a search was completed in May 2008, the month before the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT