Zuegel v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 20 July 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-07538-BLF
• Parties: JAMES R. ZUEGEL, Plaintiff, v. MARCO GARCIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

JAMES R. ZUEGEL, Plaintiff,
v.
MARCO GARCIA, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-07538-BLF

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 20, 2022

ORDER GRANTING MOUNTAIN VIEW DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

[RE: ECF NO. 16]

BETH LAB SON FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Deja vu. In this case, Plaintiff James Zuegel alleges multiple violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendants City of Mountain View and Mountain View police officers Marco Garcia, Patrick Ward, and Britton Moore arising out of Zuegel's warrantless arrest on June 7, 2015. Zuegel himself characterizes this case as a “follow-on” to a previous case before this Court in which the Court dismissed similar § 1983 claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and in which Zuegel eventually prevailed on other claims before a jury. See Zuegel v. Mountain View Police Dep't, No. 17-cv-3249 (N.D. Cal., filed Jun. 6, 2017) (“Zuegel I”).

Understandably, Defendants now move to dismiss the claims in this case, arguing that they are res judicata due to the judgment in Zuegel I. See ECF No. 16 (“MTD”); see also ECF No. 29 (“Reply”). Zuegel argues that the claims are not res judicata and that the Heck bar has been lifted because habeas relief is no longer available to him after his probation ended. See ECF No. 28 (“Opp.”). The Court previously found this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument.^[1]See ECF No. 24; Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Heck bar

1

remains because Zuegel's claims were not pursued diligently through other avenues of review. The motion to dismiss is thus GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and the Clerk shall close the case.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Zuegel I

On June 6, 2017, Zuegel filed his original lawsuit in this Court. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 1. The Court first evaluated Zuegel's claims in that lawsuit in April 2018 after he obtained counsel and filed an amended complaint. See Zuegel I, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 40 (“Apr. '18 Ord.”). As the Court summarized in that Order, in the amended complaint, Zuegel asserted claims arising out of incidents occurring between May and June 2015. Zuegel alleged that on May 23, 2015, he and his wife accompanied their severely autistic son JR (and his autism service dog) to the Mountain View El Camino YMCA for a swim lesson. Id. at 2 (citing the amended complaint). After the lesson, as Zuegel waited for his family on one of the couches at the YMCA, two young girls sat near him on the couch and talked to Zuegel about his son's service dog. Id. JR emerged making loud noises, sat between Zuegel and one of the girls, and tried to “dart” away. Id. Zuegel grabbed JR by the back of his shirt to try to prevent him from darting away, as he normally did, and said something to the effect of “sit your butt down.” Id. Zuegel and his family left after briefly encountering a woman who appeared to be the mother of one of the girls. Id.

Zuegel alleged that days later and unknown to Zuegel, the girl's mother reported to the Mountain View Police Department that a man with a service dog at the YMCA had slapped her daughter on the butt and asked her, “How old are these buns?” Apr. '18 Ord. at 2-3. The young girl corroborated these allegations in a follow-up interview, although also saying that the man did not “touch any private areas.” Id. at 3. Based on these interviews, Officers Ward and Moore arrived at and entered Zuegel's home at 9:33 p.m. on June 7, 2015 without an arrest or search warrant and arrested Zuegel in the presence of his wife and JR after he refused to be interrogated without counsel or his wife present. Id. The arrest was extremely distressing to the family and caused JR to become highly agitated. Id. Officer Garcia led the interrogation of Zuegel at the

2

police station. Id. Zuegel was confined overnight and for part of the following day until his wife posted bail. Id.

The Santa Clara District Attorney charged Zuegel with misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct in public in violation of California Penal Code §§ 242-243.4(3)(1), 647(a). Apr. '18 Ord. at 3-4. Zuegel alleged that to avoid having to register as a sex offender, on September 30, 2016, he pled no contest to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Id. Zuegel was placed on probation for three years, ordered to perform 75 hours of community service, and barred from coming within 300 yards of the YMCA. Id.

In the amended complaint in Zuegel I, Zuegel asserted four state law claims against the Defendants here, one § 1983 claim against Officers Garcia, Ward, and Moore, and one § 1983 claim against the Mountain View Police Department and City of Mountain View. Apr. '18 Ord. at 4. As is relevant here, in April 2018, this Court dismissed the § 1983 claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint, largely without leave to amend. Id. at 5-15. The Court found that the § 1983 claims for false arrest, lack of a warrant, coercion to consent to a search of his phone, violation of his right to remain silent, violation of his right to counsel, and violation of his due process right not to be interrogated were barred by Heck because establishing the basis for damages under § 1983 for those courses of conduct would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the underlying conviction. Id. at 6, 12 (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 481-82). The Court held that those claims were “properly the subject of habeas corpus proceedings which [Zuegel] allege[d] he [wa]s simultaneously pursuing.” Id. at 11, 12. The Court granted Zuegel leave to amend solely to attempt to allege a § 1983 claim based on “the circumstances surrounding the manner of the arrest”-the nighttime arrest or arrest without consent to enter absent exigent circumstances- because those courses of conduct would not demonstrate the invalidity of the plea. Id. at 15. Otherwise, his § 1983 claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Id. at 6, 11, 12, 15.

Zuegel proceeded to trial on two claims-one for warrantless entry and arrest against Officers Moore and Ward and one for Monell liability against the City on a failure to train theory related to the first claim. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 108 (denying summary judgment on those claims). On November 20, 2020, the jury returned a verdict finding that the officers did not enter

3

Zuegel's residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that they had remained inside after consent was withdrawn, thus violating the Fourth Amendment. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 178 at 1-2 (jury verdict). The jury found that the Fourth Amendment violation was not a result of the City's deliberate indifference for failure to train. Id. at 2. The jury awarded Zuegel $3,000 in total damages, with fault apportioned equally between Officers Ward and Moore. Id. at 2-3. The Court entered judgment on November 23, 2020. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 179. The Court later denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted in part Zuegel's request for attorneys' fees. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 223. Zuegel's appeal of the Court's orders on the motions to dismiss and motion for summary judgment is still pending at the Ninth Circuit.^[2] See 9th Cir. No. 21-16277.

B. Zuegel's State Habeas Proceedings

Zuegel's plea to and conviction of the state misdemeanor charge occurred on September 30, 2016. See Zuegel I, ECF No. 19-4; accord Compl. ¶ 54 (stating the Zuegel's three years of probation were completed on September 30, 2019). Zuegel filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on December 19, 2017, fifteen months after his conviction. See Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. H, ECF No. 16-10, at 67-113. The Superior Court denied the writ on February 2, 2018. See id. at 115-19. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Sixth District Court of Appeal on April 2, 2018, id. at 121-252, which was denied on November 1, 2018, id. at 254. He filed his habeas petition in the Supreme Court of California on December 31, 2018. See generally id. The Supreme Court denied the petition on July 10, 2019- approximately two-and-a-half months before Zuegel's probation was set to end-thus exhausting Zuegel's state habeas remedies. See RJN Ex. I. Zuegel did not file a federal habeas petition because he “could not realistically complete” those proceedings in the limited time before his probation would end and the habeas petition would become moot. See Opp. at 9.

C. Zuegel II

Zuegel filed this case on September 28, 2021, two days short of two years from the

4

termination of his probation. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Zuegel characterizes the case as a “follow-on” to Zuegel I that is based on the same conduct but which asserts claims that have supposedly newly “accrued” under § 1983 due to the unavailability of federal habeas relief after the termination of Zuegel's probation. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. The Complaint asserts four § 1983 claims: (1) against Officers Ward and Moore for arrest without probable cause, id. ¶¶ 55-57; (2) against Officers Ward and Moore for arrest in retaliation for assertion of constitutional rights, id. ¶¶ 5860; (3) against Officer Ward and Detective Garcia for transportation to county jail for booking without probable cause, id. ¶¶ 61-64; and (4) against the City of Mountain View under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), Compl. ¶¶ 65-71.^[3] Zuegel seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Id. at 26.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.'” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all...