Augusta Millender et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 278

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 234 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 7/29/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AUGUSTA MILLENDER, BRENDA
MILLENDER, WILLIAM JOHNSON,

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; et al.

16
Defendants.
17
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 05-02298 DDP (RZx)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Dkt. No. 234]

18
19

Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary

20

Adjudication of Monell Claim.

21

submissions and heard oral argument, the court GRANTS IN PART AND

22

DENIES IN PART the motion.

Having considered the parties’

23

The court’s orders of March 15, 2007, (“2007 Order”) and

24

August 24, 2012, (“2012 Order”) present in detail the factual

25

history of this case and the legal standard.

26

relevant part, the court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

27

Judgment on the Monell claims, deferred ruling on Defendants’

28

Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the Monell claims, and

In the 2007 Order, in

1

found that as a matter of law, the search warrant at issue was

2

overbroad in authorizing the seizure of all firearms and any gang-

3

related evidence.

4

immunity.

5

probable cause for the broad categories of firearm- and gang-

6

related items listed in the search warrant,” and therefore “the

7

search warrant violated the Millenders’ constitutional rights.”

8

Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016, 1031.

9

Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Id. at 1035.

10

The Supreme Court reversed as to qualified immunity but did not

11

reverse the holding that the warrant was overbroad.

12

v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1250-51, 1244 (“The validity of the

13

warrant is not before us.

14

Messerschmidt and Lawurence are entitled to immunity from damages,

15

even assuming that the warrant should not have been issued.”).

16

The 2007 Order also denied Defendants qualified

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that “there was no

The Ninth

Messerschmidt

The question instead is whether

Defendants now move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Monell

17

claims.

18

respect to Plaintiffs’ Monell claims regarding the overbroad

19

warrant.

20

issue of fact as to whether the county has a policy or custom of

21

issuing overbroad warrants.

22

presented evidence creating an issue of fact as to whether (1) the

23

county has a policy or custom of issuing warrants to search for a

24

broad range of guns and gun-related accessories when there is

25

probable cause to search for a particular gun, and (2) the county

26

has a policy of issuing warrants to search for gang-related

27

materials where there is no probable cause that a crime is gang-

28

related.

As stated on the record, the court DENIES the motion with

Plaintiffs have presented evidence creating a genuine

Specifically, Plaintiffs have

This evidence is discussed in detail on the record.
2

1

The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion with respect to

2

Plaintiffs’ Monell claims pertaining to the allegedly unlawful

3

entry.

4

whether the county has a policy of unlawful entry.

5

presented evidence of testimony from the lieutenant in charge of

6

the SWT section of SEB, the incident commander, Defendants’ expert,

7

the SWAT team leader, and other officers on the SWAT team, that all

8

actions of the deputies in the course of their entry into the

9

Millenders’ house were in accordance with department policy and

The court finds that there is no issue of fact as to
Plaintiffs have

10

training.

11

policy.

12

single incident, the court cannot discern what the purportedly

13

unconstitutional policy is.

14

ultimately finds that the entry was unconstitutional, Plaintiffs

15

have presented no evidence of other such entries, however the

16

policy is characterized, and thus no evidence beyond this

17

particular incident.

18

municipal policy or custom based solely on the occurrence of a

19

single incident of unconstitutional action by a non-policymaking

20

employee.”

21

(9th Cir. 1989)(citing City of Oklahoma City b. Tuttle, 471 U.S.

22

808, 823-24 (1985)).

Without more, this is insufficient to establish a County

First, because all of Plaintiffs’ evidence pertains to the

Additionally, even if the jury

Plaintiffs cannot “prove the existence of a

Davis v. City of Ellensburg, 869 F.2d 1230, 1233-34

The court has already found that there is a question of fact

23
24

as to the constitutionality of the deputies’ entry.

25

55.)

26

///

(2007 Order at

However, Plaintiffs have not met their burden in establishing

27
28
3

1

an issue of fact with respect to the County’s policy regarding

2

entry.

3

Defendants on this issue.

Therefore, the court grants summary judgment in favor of

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: July 29, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4