Solis v. County of Stanislaus et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/26/2015 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERING that this action proceed on 11 Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Griebel and Quiroz, in their individual capacities, for exces sive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and against Defendants Niewenhuis, King and Albonetti, in their individual capacities, for failure to intercede; DISMISSING the plaintiff's claims against said defendants in their official capacities; GRANTING the plaintiff thirty days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint joining the City of Ceres as a defendant. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
JAVIER SOLIS,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CIV. NO. 1:14-937 WBS BAM
v.
CITY OF CERES POLICE
DEPARTMENT; OFFICER GRIEBEL,
(ID NUMBER 363) individually
and in his official capacity,
OFFICER QUIROZ, (ID NUMBER
656) individually and in his
official capacity, OFFICER
NIEWENHUIS individually and
in his official capacity,
OFFICER KING individually and
in his official capacity,
OFFICER ALBONETTI
individually and in his
official capacity,
Defendants.
----oo0oo----
24
25
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Javier Solis filed this pro se action under
26
42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged excessive force used against
27
him on December 28, 2012.
28
forma pauperis, the assigned magistrate judge screened his
Because plaintiff is proceeding in
1
1
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2
judge recommended that plaintiff be able to proceed with the
3
claims against the individual officers, but that the claims under
4
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658
5
(1978), should be dismissed without leave to amend.
6
13.)
7
recommendation that his Monell claim be dismissed.
8
14.)
The magistrate
(Docket No.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s
(Docket No.
9
Because § 1983 does not provide for vicarious
10
liability, a municipality can be liable only “when execution of a
11
government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or
12
by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent
13
official policy, inflicts the injury . . . .”
14
at 693.
15
§ 1983 under three broad theories: (1) “when implementation of
16
its official policies or established customs inflicts the
17
constitutional injury,” id. at 708 (Powell, J. concurring); (2)
18
“for acts of ‘omission,’ when such omissions amount to the local
19
government’s own official policy,” Clouthier v. County of Contra
20
Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th Cir. 2010); and (3) “when the
21
individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official
22
with final policy-making authority or such an official ratified a
23
subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis
24
for it,” Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1250 (internal quotation marks
25
and citation omitted).
26
Monell, 436 U.S.
Generally, a local government may be held liable under
There can be little doubt that plaintiff attempted to
27
plead a Monell claim in his Third Amended Complaint.
28
Am. Compl. ¶ 3 (“The City of Ceres Police department fosters a
2
(See Third
1
policy an [sic] environment of brutality and office [sic]
2
misconduct. . . . [T]he deliberate inaction by the Department has
3
led to a policy and environment of unlawful tactics.”).)
4
Third Amended Complaint includes factual allegations that could
5
support a plausible Monell claim.
6
large number of complaints for a department it sized [sic] and at
7
the time of the incident was not investigating complaints in a
8
timely or thorough manor [sic].
9
officers administering beating [sic] on a regular basis and had
The
(See id. (“The city has a
Supervisors ignored reports of
10
or should have had knowledge of a group of six officers that
11
acted in concert to rid the community of the ‘undesirables’.
12
Small parts of the community were aware of this group, its
13
tactics and the apparent impunity which they acted under, the
14
deliberate inaction by the Department has led to a policy and
15
environment of unlawful tactics. . . . The Ceres Police
16
Department has since terminated several officers for their
17
actions and has reversed may [sic] of the changes made in their
18
reorganization of the last few years.”).)
19
While these allegations by a pro se plaintiff are
20
sufficient to survive screening at this early stage, the
21
magistrate judge correctly points out that plaintiff has not
22
named the City of Ceres as a defendant.
23
give plaintiff leave to join the City of Ceres as a defendant in
24
this case.
25
The court will therefore
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court ADOPTS the
26
magistrate judge’s recommendations that (1) this action proceed
27
on plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, (Docket No. 11), against
28
defendants Griebel and Quiroz in their individual capacities for
3
1
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and against
2
defendants Niewenhuis, King, and Albonetti in their individual
3
capacities for failure to intercede and (2) plaintiff’s claims
4
against those officers in their official capacities be dismissed.
5
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that plaintiff has thirty days
6
from the date this Order is signed to file a Fourth Amended
7
Complaint joining the City of Ceres as a defendant.
8
plaintiff files a Fourth Amended Complaint, the magistrate judge
9
shall enter an order finding service of the City of Ceres
10
appropriate.
11
Dated:
October 26, 2015
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
After
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?