Wilson v. Hays

• Citation: 228 F.Supp.3d 1100
• Decision Date: 13 January 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 16–cv–01161–BAS(DHB)
• Parties: Melanie WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Christopher R. HAYS; City of San Diego, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

228 F.Supp.3d 1100

Melanie WILSON, Plaintiff,

v.Christopher R. HAYS; City of San Diego, Defendants.

Case No. 16–cv–01161–BAS(DHB)

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed January 13, 2017

James C. Mitchell, Mitchell and Gilleon, Samuel Clemens, Gilleon Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.

Kevin M. Osterberg, Haight Brown and Bonesteel LLP, Riverside, CA, Keith W. Phillips, City of San Diego City Attorneys Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 4); AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER R. HAYS'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 14)

Hon. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Melanie Wilson commenced this action against Defendants Christopher R. Hays and the City of San Diego on May 13, 2016, alleging violations of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). This action arises from an incident in December 2013 where Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hays, a San Diego Police Department Officer at the time, sexually battered her after giving her a ride home and then taunted her for an hour and a half. Defendants separately move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on the ground that they are time barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF Nos. 4, 14.) Plaintiff opposes. (ECF Nos. 5, 15.)

The Court finds these motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) ; Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City's motion to dismiss and GRANTS Hays's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND¹

A. Section 1983 Allegations against Defendant Hays

The San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") hired Defendant Christopher R. Hays as a sworn police officer in late 2009 or early 2010. (Compl. ¶ 24, ECF No. 1.) On December 23, 2013, at approximately 5:12 a.m., Plaintiff was out collecting items for recycling near the intersection of 50th Street and El Cajon Boulevard in San Diego, California. (Id. ¶ 38.) Earlier that morning, Plaintiff fought with her boyfriend, forgot her glasses, broke her flashlight, and got lost in an unfamiliar part of town. (Id. ) Plaintiff admits she had used methamphetamine earlier that morning, but claims she was aware of what was happening around her. (Id. )

At around the same time she was collecting items for recycling, Plaintiff alleges that Hays—who was on duty in his SDPD uniform and driving a marked patrol car—approached Plaintiff and asked her what she was doing. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff replied that she was collecting items for recycling and explained to Hays what had happened to her earlier in the morning. (Id. ) Hays offered Plaintiff a courtesy ride home. (Id. ) Plaintiff accepted the offer, and Hays drove her to the address where she was staying. (Id. )

Once they arrived at the address, Plaintiff exited the car, and Hays immediately informed her that he needed to search her. (Compl. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff consented to the search, despite Hays's lack of probable cause to conduct a search. (Id. ) Hays, contrary to SDPD policy and procedure, did not then conduct a quick "pat down." (Id. ) Rather, he allegedly touched Plaintiff "in a continuous motion," including "touching her breasts and vagina" and "lingering over every part of her body" for approximately three minutes (Id. )

Following the search, Hays remained in the driveway for approximately an hour and a half. (Compl. ¶ 40.) While in the driveway, Hays made various comments to Plaintiff, including questions about what color underwear she was wearing, racial comments about Plaintiff's Vietnamese boyfriend, and statements about his sexual preferences. (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges that she did not report the incident until she was contacted by SDPD detectives after January 1, 2014, because she feared no one would believe her.² (Compl. ¶ 40.) On February 9, 2014, the SDPD arrested Hays for crimes committed against various women while Hays was on duty as a police officer. (Id. ¶ 35.) On February 18, 2014, the San Diego County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint against Hays, charging him with felonies and misdemeanors for the alleged crimes committed against Plaintiff and two other women while Hays was on duty. (Id. ) Hays subsequently resigned from the SDPD on February 19, 2014. (Id. ) On August 22, 2014, Hays pled guilty to one count of false imprisonment and two misdemeanor counts of assault under color of authority. (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges that Hays's actions on December 23, 2013, constitute a violation of her civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (Compl. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff also alleges that as a result of Hays's conduct on December 23, 2015, Plaintiff suffered injury, including mental and emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, and physical pain and suffering. (Id. ¶ 42.)

B. Monell Allegations against the City

Plaintiff further alleges that Hays's conduct on December 23, 2013, was a direct result of the City's failure to properly train, screen, examine, supervise, and evaluate its police officers. (Compl. ¶ 46.) Part of the events that form the basis for Plaintiff's second cause of action began in 1994 when the SDPD employed former SDPD Officer Anthony Arevalos. (Id. ¶ 7.)

In 1999, a fellow SDPD officer witnessed Officer Arevalos sexually assault a young woman who was in a fragile mental state. (Compl. ¶ 9.) The officer reported the incident to his supervisors. (Id. ) However, rather than report the incident up the SDPD chain of command, the supervisors destroyed photographs Officer Arevalos had taken during the sexual assault and other evidence of the incident. (Id. ) After the 1999 incident, Officer Arevalos continued to target women and sexually assault them while on duty. (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) Such misconduct included sexually assaulting women, engaging in sexual intercourse and/or oral copulation while in uniform in the back of a patrol car, soliciting sexual favors as bribes, and engaging in other forms of sexual misconduct. (Id. ¶ 8.) In addition, Officer Arevalos bragged about his sexual misconduct and showed photographs he took during the various incidents to fellow police officers and his supervisors. (Id. ) In at least four incidents of sexual misconduct by Officer Arevalos, the victims came forward and reported the incident to the SDPD and its supervisory officials. (Id. ¶¶ 11–14.) Despite these reports from four different victims, the SDPD never punished or disciplined Officer Arevalos. (Id. )

In addition, during part of the time Officers Arevalos and Hays were assaulting women, Plaintiff alleges that former SDPD Officer Kevin Hychko was also assaulting and battering women under color of authority. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Officer Hychko would perform traffic stops on attractive female drivers without probable cause or reasonable suspicion and without properly notifying dispatch of such stops. (Id. ) Officer Hychko also targeted victims of domestic violence because their vulnerability allowed him to make sexual advances toward them more easily. (Id. ) Furthermore, during this time in late 2012, Officer Hychko met an underage girl while on duty and maintained an inappropriate relationship with her thereafter. (Id. ¶ 17.) The SDPD was aware of Officer Hychko's misconduct, but allegedly chose not to take any corrective action until the federal government publicly chastised the SDPD and its command. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17.) In 2014, former Chief of Police William Landsdowne resigned under pressure, and the newly-appointed Chief Shelley Zimmerman launched a confidential internal affairs investigation that resulted in the termination of Officer Hychko. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Plaintiff alleges that the cover up of Officer Arevalos's criminal, sexual misconduct in 1999 and the failure to investigate his later misconduct was part of a long-standing "unwritten" policy within the SDPD that discouraged officers from reporting instances of suspected or witnessed police misconduct to their supervisors or to SDPD Internal Affairs. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff asserts that this policy allowed supervisors and officers to cover up and destroy evidence of officer misconduct. (Id. )

Plaintiff further alleges that from 2003 to the present, the City and the SDPD maintained "unwritten" policies that allowed SDPD officers to continue their criminal misconduct without punishment.³ (Compl. ¶¶ 19–22.) Plaintiff asserts that the City and the SDPD maintained these policies knowingly, with gross negligence, and with deliberate indifference for the constitutional rights of citizens. (Id. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff also alleges that the City and the SDPD failed to properly test, screen, evaluate, or train officers before hiring them. (Compl. ¶ 26.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that Hays's field training officer recommended to the training sergeant at the police academy that Hays's performance at the academy was well-below average, that he was unfit to be a police officer, and that he should not be hired as a police officer. (Id. ¶ 25.) Despite this recommendation, the training sergeant hired Hays as a police officer after being pressured by Hays's father-in-law—a thirty-year veteran of the SDPD who leads the SDPD's Special Operations Unit and who inappropriately interfered with and influenced the decision to hire Hays. (Id. )

These policies, procedures, and customs underlie Plaintiff's Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City for failing to train, screen, test, evaluate, supervise, and examine officers and policies within the SDPD. (Compl. ¶ 46.) As a result of these policies, procedures, and customs, Plaintiff alleges the City deprived her of her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. )

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal...