DeNecochea v. State of California et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/1/14 ORDERING in light of the Court's decision to permit an amended complaint, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 18 and 19 are hereby DENIED without prejudice to being renewed as i ndicated following the submission of an amended complaint, except with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, Officers Hawkinson and Mertens, and Sergeant Beland (in their official capaciti es). As stated above, Defendants' request for dismissal as to those claims, as set forth in 19 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file an additional amended complaint not later than October 31, 2014. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action, in its entirety and without further notice, for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN DENECOCHEA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:13-cv-01906-MCE-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
SERGEANT SCOTT BALAND,
OFFICER STEVEN HAWKINSON,
OFFICER GREG MARTENS, ADAM
FAIRMAN, SUTTER MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, CITY OF
SACRAMENTO, JOHN DOES, 1
through 100,
Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiff John DeNecochea (“Plaintiff”) instituted the present action on

23

September 12, 2013, as a result of a traffic stop made by California Highway Patrol

24

Officers Steven Hawkinson and Greg Martens after Plaintiff allegedly ran a red light at

25

the corner of K and 16th Streets in Sacramento, California. After being administered

26

field sobriety tests, Plaintiff was arrested by Defendants Hawkinson and Martens for

27

driving under the influence of alcohol and taken to Sacramento County Jail for booking.

28

Once he arrived at the jail, Plaintiff claims he became violently ill and was subsequently
1

1

transported by ambulance to Defendant Sutter Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff claims to

2

have been physically assaulted by the Defendant Officers both during the course of his

3

arrest and during his subsequent transfer to Sutter. Plaintiff further claims that

4

Defendant Adam Fairman, a phlebotomist at Sutter, wrongfully obtained a blood sample

5

without his consent. The County of Sacramento was originally included as a Defendant

6

but dismissed by Stipulation and Order filed May 14, 2014. The City of Sacramento was

7

also named as a Defendant but appears to never have been served.

8
9

Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges various constitutional and common law claims against
Defendants, including substantive and procedural due process violations, wrongful

10

search and seizure claims, equal protection and civil rights violations, along with various

11

state law claims including, but not limited to, allegations pertaining to assault, battery,

12

false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

13

On April 16, 2014, in response to earlier-filed Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed an

14

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 16. That prompted the Motions to Dismiss presently

15

before the Court, one filed on May 7, 2014, by Defendants Sutter Memorial Hospital and

16

Adam Fairman (ECF No. 18), and the other filed on May 9, 2014, on behalf of

17

Defendants State of California by and through the California Highway Patrol and on

18

behalf of Officers Hawkinson and Martens and their supervisor, Sergeant Scott Baland.

19

ECF No. 19.

20

After initially failing to submit a timely opposition, in response to an order to show

21

cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Plaintiff filed a

22

response to the Motions to Dismiss on July 1, 2014. ECF No. 24. That response

23

concedes that Plaintiff’s claims in this Court against the Defendants State of California,

24

the California Highway Patrol, Officers Hawkinson and Martens, and Sergeant Baland (in

25

their official capacities) are barred by principles of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pl.’s

26

Response, 7:27-8:11. With respect to the Motion filed on behalf of Sutter and Fairman,

27

Plaintiff does not oppose their alternative request that a more definite statement of

28

Plaintiff’s claims be provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). As to both
2

1

groups of Defendants, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add additional facts and

2

specificity, citing some forty (40) different factual elements that he wants to add to his

3

Complaint. Id. at 3:18-7:6.

4

Additionally, as Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out in the response, Plaintiff was

5

scheduled go to trial on the criminal DUI charges pending against him on the same day

6

Plaintiff’s response was filed, July 1, 2014. Following a three-day jury trial, Plaintiff was

7

convicted of driving under the influence, in violation of California Vehicle Code

8

§§ 23152(a) and (b). Given those misdemeanor convictions, both sets of Defendants

9

allege in their Replies to the Motions to Dismiss, filed July 28, 2014 and July 31, 2014,

10

respectively (ECF Nos. 26 and 27), that all or part of Plaintiff’s claims are barred on

11

grounds that to the extent that Plaintiff seeks by this suit to imply the invalidity of those

12

criminal convictions, he cannot do so unless and until those convictions are either

13

vacated or set aside. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Since

14

Plaintiff’s convictions, and Defendants’ corresponding arguments of claim preclusion by

15

virtue of Heck, did not arise until after Plaintiff’s opposition was submitted, Plaintiff has

16

not yet had the opportunity to respond to those allegations.

17

Given Plaintiff’s request to amend, the numerous claims and parties which he

18

concedes should be dismissed, the unopposed request for a more definite statement,

19

and particularly the significant developments that have recently occurred with respect to

20

Plaintiff’s criminal convictions, the Court believes that this matter will most expeditiously

21

be moved forward through the filing of an additional amended complaint. In drafting any

22

amended complaint, counsel for Plaintiff are cautioned to consider the implications of

23

Heck with regard to Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Given Plaintiff’s non-opposition, all

24

claims against the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, Officers Hawkinson

25

and Mertens, and Sergeant Beland (in their official capacities) are dismissed, without

26

prejudice. Because this lawsuit was not originally initiated in state court, Plaintiff’s

27

request that those claims be remanded to the Superior Court in and for the County of

28

Sacramento is denied.
3

1

In light of the Court’s decision to permit an amended complaint, Defendants’

2

Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 18 and 19) are hereby DENIED without prejudice to being

3

renewed as indicated following the submission of an amended complaint, except with

4

respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California, the California Highway Patrol,

5

Officers Hawkinson and Mertens, and Sergeant Beland (in their official capacities). As

6

stated above, Defendants’ request for dismissal as to those claims, as set forth in ECF

7

No. 19, is GRANTED.1 Plaintiff is directed to file an additional amended complaint not

8

later than October 31, 2014. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action, in its

9

entirety and without further notice, for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil

10
11
12

Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2014

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

1

Having determined that oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).

4