Angelina Dettamanti v. County of Santa Barbara et al

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim that Deputy Myles Davies, in his individual capacity, used excessive force against her on May 14, 2011, and GRANTED as to all other claims. (See Order for details) #17 , #26 . (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ANGELINA DETTAMANTI,

10
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA et
al.,

14

Defendants.

) Case No. CV 13-3484-MWF (JPR)
)
)
) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, records

17 on file, and Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate
18 Judge.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed

19 objections to the R&R.
20

Plaintiff contends that she has standing to challenge the

21 impoundment of her brother’s car because it was “in [her]
22 possession when it was seized and towed at the order of Deputy
23 Davies.”

(Objections at 2.)

But even assuming Plaintiff

24 properly asserted a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable
25 seizure of the car (see R&R at 15-17 (noting that Plaintiff
26 raised claim regarding impoundment under Fifth and 14th
27 amendments)), the fact that she was driving it before her arrest,
28 which the R&R fully acknowledged (see R&R at 6, 17), does not
establish any property interest sufficient to establish standing

1 (see id. at 17-18).

That is particularly true given that

2 Plaintiff’s brother was present during the arrest and informed
3 Officer Davies that he was the registered owner of the car.

(See

4 id. at 7, 17.)
5

Plaintiff also contends that “[a]nother conspiracy or act

6 that has damaged [her] and brings Santa Barbara County back into
7 this case” is that county counsel represents all Defendants and
8 “also happens to represent and advise[] the Santa Barbara County
9 Board of Supervisors.”

(Objections at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges

10 that “[t]his custom of allowing the Santa Barbara . . . County
11 Counsel to represent both the Santa Barbara County Board of
12 Supervisors ([t]he legislative branch) as well as . . .
13 defendants here in the Executive branch, amounts to an unlawful
14 conflict and it directly defeats the checks and balances and
15 amounts to a Conspiracy.”

As noted in the R&R (R&R at 24

(Id.)

16 n.7), however, Plaintiff did not name the County Board of
17 Supervisors as a defendant in the FAC.

Nor did she allege any

18 claim based on county counsel’s representation of various parties
19 or any alleged violation of “checks and balances.”

And Plaintiff

20 has alleged no damages resulting from county counsel’s actions,
21 other than baldly stating that they “defeat [her] liberties.”
22 (Id. at 4.)

And to the extent Plaintiff relies on her assertions

23 to support her claims against the County (see id. at 3 (noting
24 that allegations “bring[] Santa Barbara County back into this
25 case”), they fail to remedy the various deficiencies noted in the
26 R&R (see R&R at 18-25).
27

Accordingly, having reviewed de novo those portions of the

28 Report and Recommendation to which objections were filed, the
2

1 Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
2 Judge.
3

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss

4 is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim that Deputy Myles Davies, in
5 his individual capacity, used excessive force against her on May
6 14, 2011, and GRANTED as to all other claims.
7
8 DATED: July 10, 2014
9

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3