Willis v. City of Bakersfield, 1:21-CV-1077 AWI JLT

Decision Date01 November 2021
Docket Number1:21-CV-1077 AWI JLT
PartiesBYRON WILLIS, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

BYRON WILLIS, Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., Defendants

No. 1:21-CV-1077 AWI JLT

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 1, 2021


ORDER ON COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS and CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

(Doc. Nos. 10, 12, 13)

This is a civil rights lawsuit by Plaintiff Byron Willis against the City of Bakersfield (“the City”), Kern County (“the County”), the Kern County District Attorney's Office (“DAO”) and associated personnel and agencies that arises from the arrest of Willis by law enforcement officers from the City. Defendants removed this case from the Kern County Superior Court. Currently pending before the Court are a motion to dismiss by the County Defendants[1] and a motion to dismiss and a SLAPP motion to strike by the City Defendants.[2] For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss will be granted and the motion to strike will be denied as moot.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2019, Willis drove in his car from Bakersfield, California to Delano, California with his friend, M. Hill. Willis and Hill started driving to Delano before 10:00 a.m. and were in Delano from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Willis had his cell phone with him, which had GPS capabilities.

1

Also on December 3, 2019, around 11:16 a.m., an unidentified male physically attacked a fifty-year old Hispanic woman (“MM”) in an apartment complex in Bakersfield.

The Bakersfield Police Department (“BPD”) investigated the attack. MM described the attacker as a black man in his twenties weighing 150 lbs. Another witness told police that the unidentified attacker matched the description of a homeless man that frequented the area. BPD and Defendant Officer Lisa Wedeking-White and other officers prepared a composite sketch and released it to the media. The composite sketch and press release described the suspect as a black male, age 25-30, dark complexion, between 5' 4” and 5' 6” tall, between 150-160 lbs., and slim build. The press release noted that the suspect was wanted for the attempted rape of a woman at a Bakersfield apartment complex. BPD also prepared a six photo photographic line up that included Willis's photo. MM picked out Willis from the photo line up even though Willis is 5' 9”, weighs 203 lbs., and has a large athletic build. BPD applied for and obtained an arrest warrant for Willis. Willis was arrested by officers of the BPD on December 4, 2019.

BPD interviewed Willis, who denied physically attacking or attempting to rape MM. Willis explained that he was not in Bakersfield at the time of the incident, he was in Delano at the time of the incident, and that he has obvious scars on his face which are usually the first things that people notice about him. Willis also gave BPD a timeline, signed a consent form to allow BPD to search his phone (including GPS related functions), consented to a DNA swab, offered to undergo a lie detector test, denied that either his fingerprints or DNA would be found at the apartment complex or on MM, and never asked for an attorney. However, Defendant Officer Luevano and other BPD law enforcement officers refused to seriously consider his phone's GPS information or investigate Willis's claim that his phone exonerated him. BPD told Willis that his phone was no longer pertinent to the investigation, even though less than 48-hours had expired from the time he was detained. BPD had decided without thoroughly investigating the facts of the case that Willis was guilty of attempting to rape MM, and refused to investigate any evidence that would exonerate Willis.

Despite Willis's denial and exonerating evidence, BPD arrested Willis. Willis was booked into the Kern County jail by the County for attempted rape and false imprisonment. The County

2

kept Willis in custody for nearly two months. Neither BPD, the County, nor the DAO investigated Willis's claims of innocence.

BPD did issue a press release about Willis's arrest. The press release included Willis's photo and accused him of attempted rape and false imprisonment. The press release was published on BPD's Facebook page. The press release was picked up by several media outlets, who published the story to the Bakersfield community at large. From that day forward, Willis was allegedly labeled a rapist or pervert.

The DAO charged Willis with attempted rape and false imprisonment. The DAO offered several deals to Willis without investigating the facts of the case. One deal was for 31 years in prison, and the other was for 20 years in prison. Willis rejected both deals because he did not attack MM.

On January 30, 2020, the County released Willis from custody. However, it was not until July 29, 2020, that the DAO finally dismissed the charges filed against Willis. Following his release, BPD did not issue a press release about Willis's release from custody or the DAO's dismissal of the charges against Willis.

Willis alleges that his reputation has been harmed. Willis is still viewed as a rapist or pervert and has been unable to find work due to the negative publicity surrounding his arrest and criminal prosecution. Wills alleges that he experiences feelings of helplessness, fear, fatigue, and sleeplessness as a result of his detention and arrest by the BPD.

I.COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants' Arguments

The County Defendants argue that all claims against them should be dismissed.

For all state law claims, there is a fatal flaw because there are no allegations that Willis complied with the Government Claims Act's claim presentation requirements.

With respect to the first cause of action for negligence as to the County, that claims fails because the Complaint identifies no statute that authorizes or supports a negligence claim.

With respect to the third cause of action for intrusion into public affairs, the fourth cause of

3

action for public disclosure of private facts, and the fifth cause of action for false light, the allegations are contradictory. The claims appear to be based on the press release, but the Complaint clearly alleges that the press release was issued by the BPD. There are no allegations relating to any actions by the County Defendants.

With respect to the seventh cause of action for false imprisonment or unnecessary delay in processing/releasing, such a claim is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, federal law clearly establishes that, as long as a suspect is held according to a court order, jailors are not required to investigate whether the court order is proper. Also, the DAO was under no duty to investigate and is entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial conduct.

With respect to the eighth cause of action for malicious prosecution, Defendants argue that there are no allegations that the dismissal of Willis's charges constituted a “favorable termination.” In order for the termination of a criminal judicial proceeding to be considered favorable, the termination must indicate innocence. However, there are no allegations that indicate that charges were dismissed because of actual innocence.

Finally, the County Defendants argue that the ninth cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails because the allegations do not demonstrate that they engaged in any conduct that violated Willis's constitutional rights.

Plaintiff's Opposition

Willis did not file an opposition or response to the County Defendants' motion. However, Willis did file a response to the City Defendants' motions in which he states that he can allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act and generally requests leave to amend.

Legal Framework

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff's “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. See Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to

4

the non-moving party. Kwan v. SanMedica, Int'l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017). However, complaints that offer no more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Johnson v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 793 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court is “not required to accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251, 1254 (9th Cir. 2013). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Mollett, 795 F.3d at 1065. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013). If a motion to dismiss is granted, “[the] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made . . . .” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). However, leave to amend need not be granted if amendment would be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies despite repeated opportunities. Garmon v. County of L.A., 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016).

Discussion

1. State Law Claims in General

As a prerequisite for filing suit for “money or damages”...

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