Castaneda v. City of Farmersville et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/10/2015 GRANTING defendants' 20 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's 19 First Amended Complaint claims against the City with LEAVE TO AMEND. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he must file his new Complaint within 20 days of date of Order. Defendants must file their responsive pleading within 20 days thereafter. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MIKE CASTANEDA,

13

16

1:15-cv-00148-JAM-SKO

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

CITY OF FARMERSVILLE; JEREMY
BROGAN; and DOES 1 through
10,

17

Defendants.

18
Plaintiff Mike Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended

19
20

Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. #19) alleging two causes of action

21

against Defendants City of Farmersville (“the City”) and Jeremy

22

Brogan (“Brogan”) (collectively “Defendants”).

23

move to dismiss (Doc. #20) Plaintiff’s claims against the City. 1

24

///

25

///

Defendants now

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for July 15, 2015.
1

1

I.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the FAC, Plaintiff was a live-in caretaker for

3

an elderly gentleman in Farmersville, California.

While loudly

4

dealing with his patient, Plaintiff heard a knock at the door.

5

At the door was Brogan, an officer with the Farmersville Police

6

Department.

7

detained Plaintiff using handcuffs.”

8

Plaintiff severe pain.

9

police vehicle and slammed the door on Plaintiff’s foot.

Brogan asked Plaintiff to step outside and “promptly
The handcuffs caused

Brogan placed Plaintiff in the back of a
As

10

Brogan drove Plaintiff to the Tulare County Jail, Brogan drove

11

erratically in order to cause Plaintiff injuries, which such

12

injuries did result.

13

Plaintiff requested medical attention for his hands and

14

foot; Brogan ignored him.

15

three days without medical attention before being released

16

without being charged with a crime.

17

has been declared permanently disabled as a result of the

18

incident.

Plaintiff was held in custody for

Plaintiff alleges that he

19

The FAC states two causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

20

§ 1983 (“§1983”) against all Defendants based on (1) Excessive

21

Force and (2) Denial of Medical Care.

22
23

II.

24

OPINION

Defendants contend the FAC fails to set forth sufficient

25

facts to plausibly plead a cause of action against the City

26

pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of

27

New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

28

///

MTD at p. 3.

2

1

To create municipal liability under §1983, the

2

constitutional violation must be caused by “a policy, practice,

3

or custom of the entity,” Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d

4

892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011), or be the result of an order by a

5

policy-making officer, see Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d

6

1175, 1186 (9th Cir. 2002).

7

Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

factual allegations are not required under [Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure] 8, a claim must set forth sufficient factual content

See also Tsao v. Desert Palace,
“Although detailed

10

that allows the ‘court to draw the reasonable inference that the

11

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”

12

City of Sacramento, No. 2:13-CV-00456 JAM-AC, 2013 WL 3992497, at

13

*8 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

14

(2009)).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Herrera v.

In his Opposition, Plaintiff points to the following
sections of the FAC:
[The City] has failed to adequately train its employee
peace officers, including [] Brogan . . . in minimally
accepted standards of police conduct . . . including
proper use of [force] . . . and obligations to provide
medical care . . . . [FAC ¶ 10]
Defendant Brogan . . . acting within the course and
scope of his duties . . . seized, detained and arrested
Plaintiff without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable
suspicion or any other legal justification . . . . [FAC
¶ 22]

23

Opp. at p. 4.

Plaintiff adds that Defendants were also “placed

24

on notice” by the FAC’s allegation that Brogan “intentionally and

25

deliberately refused to render or provide any form of reasonable

26

medical care to treat Plaintiff for the injuries he had suffered

27

. . . . [FAC ¶ 27].”

28

adequately put Defendants “on notice for what they must defend.”

Id.

Plaintiff argues these allegations

3

1

Opp. at pp. 3-4.

2

First, the allegations regarding Brogan’s conduct

3

surrounding the seizure and detention of Plaintiff (FAC ¶ 22) and

4

his failure to provide medical care (FAC ¶ 27) relate to and

5

properly support Plaintiff’s claims against Brogan.

6

City cannot be held liable for Brogan’s actions under a

7

respondeat superior theory.

8

652 F.3d 1225, 1232–33 (9th Cir. 2011).

9

However, the

See Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento,

The only allegations in the FAC providing any basis for the

10

City’s liability pursuant to Monell are entirely conclusory.

11

¶¶ 10-11.

12

not enough to state that there is a policy and the policy

13

amounted to deliberate indifference to various constitutional

14

rights of the Plaintiffs; there must be facts showing the

15

plausibility of those statements.”

16

*8.

17

Supreme Court has made it clear that threadbare allegations are

18

insufficient to ‘unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff

19

armed with nothing more than conclusions.’”

20

Fairfield, 833 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting

21

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79).

FAC

“[T]o sufficiently state a claim under Monell, it is

Herrera, 2013 WL 3992497, at

“Although [a] plaintiff may benefit from discovery, the

Via v. City of

22

The FAC does not allege any facts supporting Plaintiff’s

23

claims that the City failed to adequately train and supervise its

24

officers and properly investigate claims of misconduct.

25

Court accordingly grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss

26

Plaintiff’s claims against the City in the first and second

27

causes of action.

28

Plaintiff can allege no set of facts to support such claims, the

The

Because it is not clear to the Court that

4

1

Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

2
3
4

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

5

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the City

6

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

7

his new complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this

8

order.

9

twenty (20) days thereafter.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must file

Defendants must file their responsive pleading within

Dated: July 10, 2015

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5