Womack v. County of Amador

• Decision Date: 07 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. Civ. S-02-1063 RRB DAD.,Civ. S-02-1063 RRB DAD.
• Citation: 551 F.Supp.2d 1017
• Parties: Robert WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF AMADOR, Estate of Russell Moore, deceased in his individual capacity, David J. Irey, in his individual capacity, Todd D. Riebe, in his individual capacity, Ron Hall, in his individual and official capacities, Rich Dunlop, in his individual capacity, Jim Walshaw, in his individual and official capacities, Robert Wertman, in his individual capacity, James Garcia, in his individual capacity, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

551 F.Supp.2d 1017

Robert WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF AMADOR, Estate of Russell Moore, deceased in his individual capacity, David J. Irey, in his individual capacity, Todd D. Riebe, in his individual capacity, Ron Hall, in his individual and official capacities, Rich Dunlop, in his individual capacity, Jim Walshaw, in his individual and official capacities, Robert Wertman, in his individual capacity, James Garcia, in his individual capacity, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants.

No. Civ. S-02-1063 RRB DAD.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

March 7, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael Raley Mitchell, Law Office of Michael R. Mitchell, Tarzana, CA, Steven E. Moyer, Moldo Davidson Fraioli Seror & Sestanovich, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Laurence L. Angelo, Allison Ernestine Goldsmith, J. Scott Smith, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff, Stephen Charles Pass, State of California, Office of the Attorney General, Robert H. Johnson, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA, William Stephen Scott, Scott and Nicholls Professional Law Corporation, Stockton, CA, for Defendants.

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

RALPH R. BEISTLINE, District Judge.

Robert Womack ("Womack") against the County of Amador Patrol Officer Russell Moore civil rights action California Highway San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney David J. Irey ("Irey"), Amador County District Attorney Todd Riebe ("Riebe"), Amador County District Attorney Investigator Ron Hall ("Hall") and others,¹ alleging Fourth Amendment claims arising out of two searches allegedly executed under warrants obtained with knowingly false affidavits during a criminal investigation into the removal and disposal of an underground gasoline storage tank.² The County now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.³ For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 1998, KRL Partnership ("KRL")⁴ purchased a defunct gasoline station in Jackson, California, in order to convert the real property into a parking lot. Pl's AMF ¶ 4; Def.'s Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") ¶¶ 1-2. On May 2, 1998, Plaintiff Womack oversaw the removal of an underground gasoline storage tank. Pl's AMF ¶ 7; Def.'s UMF ¶ 3. Upon learning of the removal of the storage tank, Amador County officials expressed concern about environmental contamination and referred the matter to the Amador County District Attorney's office (the "D.A.'s office"), which instituted a criminal investigation. Def.'s UMF ¶¶ 2, 5, 14-16, 18.

In June 1998, District Attorney Stephen Cilenti ("Cilenti") assigned the case to Hall, an investigator employed by the D.A.'s office. Pl's AMF ¶ 14; Def.'s UMF ¶ 18. Hall was assigned the task of determining whether Womack had committed environmental crimes in connection with the removal and disposal of the underground gasoline storage tank. Pl's AMF ¶ 14. Due to Hall's inexperience with environmental cases, Irey, a San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney, was specially appointed to conduct the investigation, in Amador County, assisted by Moore, a California Highway Patrol Officer. Id. ¶¶ 17, 21, 33; Def.'s UMF ¶¶ 19, 24. Hall and Irey located the removed storage tank and obtained a copy of a check, drawn from a KRL bank account, used to pay for the disposal of the storage tank. Def.'s UMF ¶¶ 20-22. The address on the check was 15864 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, California, a KRL property and Womack's home address (the "Ridge Road Property"). Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.

In October 1998, Moore drafted an affidavit, with the assistance of Irey and Hall, in support of a search warrant (the "first search warrant") authorizing the seizure of KRL records from Womack's residence on the Ridge Road property. Pl's AMF ¶¶ 44-45; Def.'s UMF ¶ 26. On October 30, 1998, Moore and investigators from the D.A.'s office, including Hall, executed a search of the Ridge Road Property. Pl's AMF ¶ 50; Def.'s UMF ¶ 29. During the search, investigators, including Hall and Moore, seized a broad range of documents. Pl's AMF ¶ 51. On December 1, 1998, a grand jury indicted Womack and others on twenty-one counts, most of which concerned the removal of the underground storage tank and actions related to its disposal. Id. ¶ 60; Def.'s UMF ¶ 30.

On January 4, 1999, Todd Riebe ("Riebe") was sworn in as Amador County District Attorney. Def.'s UMF ¶ 31. On January 11, 1999, Moore, assisted by Irey, submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant (the "second search warrant") to search the Ridge Road Property. Id. ¶ 32; Pl's AMF ¶ 65. The affidavit submitted in support of the second search warrant indicated that it had two goals: (1) it sought evidence to prosecute the pending indictment against Womack; and (2) it sought to investigate and uncover new crimes. Exh. 50, attached to Pl's Opp. to Def.'s Mtn., for Summary Judgment/Adjudication ("MSJ/MSA"). Specifically, the affidavit characterized the aims of the search as follows: "to gather evidence as to the crimes[] which Robert WOMACK was indicted on and to help determine the entire scope of these business activities that are permeated with fraud we need to determine several additional things." Id.⁵ Before Moore submitted the affidavit, it was reviewed by Irey and approved by Riebe. Pl's AMF ¶¶ 69-73.

On January 11, 1999, the second search warrant was approved authorizing the seizure of a broad range of documents created since January 1, 1995 (Pl's AMF ¶¶ 79, 85), and was executed by Hall, Moore, and others. Def.'s UMF ¶ 34. After discovering evidence outside the scope of the warrant, Moore interrupted the search and returned to court with Irey to obtain an extended warrant authorizing seizure of documents dating back to 1990. Id. ¶ 35; Pl's AMF ¶¶ 86-87. Following approval of the extended warrant, Moore allegedly seized documents relating to all aspects of the KRL partnership going back to 1977 and earlier. Pl's AMF ¶¶ 89-90.

On August 18, 1999, the Amador County Superior Court found the warrant authorizing the October 30, 1998 search to be facially overbroad and beyond the scope of the probable cause underlying the search. Pl's AMF ¶ 54; Exh. 25, attached to Pl's Opp. to Def.'s MSJ/MSA. The court ordered that all KRL business records seized during the search to be suppressed on the basis that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not establish probable cause for the seizure of such records. Id. On July 3, 2001, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order in part and reversed it in part. Exh. 26, attached to Pl's Opp. to Def.'s MSJ/MSA. Specifically, the Third District concluded that the trial court erred by suppressing all KRL business records because the affidavit in support of the warrant established probable cause for the seizure of some of KRL's business records (e.g., the records relating to the alleged removal and disposal of the underground storage tank). Id. The Third District vacated the trial court's order with directions to enter a new order suppressing only KRL business records unrelated to the alleged removal and disposal of the underground storage tank. Id.

In September 2000, the D.A.'s office transferred Womack's criminal prosecution to the California Attorney General's Office. Def.'s UMF ¶ 41. In August 2001, the Attorney General's Office dismissed the criminal charges against Womack and instituted a civil action against Womack and others. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. No criminal charges were ever subsequently filed against Womack, KRL or any of its partners. Pl's AMF ¶ 10.

On May 15, 2002, Womack filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the following claims: (1) Fourth Amendment violations (unreasonable search and seizure); (2) Fourteenth Amendment violation (malicious prosecution); and (3) Monell liability. Compl. ¶¶ 1-84. On August 10, 2007, the County filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Docket at 72. The County seeks summary judgment/adjudication on the following grounds: (1) the Fourth Amendment claims are time-barred; (2) the Monell claim fails because the county officials connected with this action are immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment, and/or because Womack failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the implementation of a county policy, custom or practice caused the alleged constitutional deprivations; and (3) the malicious prosecution claim fails because Womack failed to proffer evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prior criminal prosecution was pursued to a favorable termination. These arguments are discussed individually below.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 56(b) permits a party whom a claim has been asserted to "move at any time, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment/adjudication on all or part of the claim." Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(b). Summary judgment/adjudication is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue of fact is "genuine" if it constitutes evidence with which "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). That genuine issue of fact is "material" if it "might effect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." See id. ("As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.").

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v....