Somera v. County of San Joaquin et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/18/14 ORDERING for the reasons stated, Plaintiff's state claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff's excessive force claim against San Joaquin County is DISMISSED with leave to amend, and Plaintiff's federal claims against the Sheriff's Department, San Joaquin Hospital, CHP and the State of California are DISMISSED without leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in any claim that was dismissed with leave to amend. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CHESTER MARK SOMERA,

v.

14

16
17
18
19
20
21

2:14-cv-01424-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,

13

15

No.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN;SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF‟S
DEPARTMENT; CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL; SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL;
DEPUTY MICHAEL ARREOLA;
DEPUTY STIEHR; DEPUTY CHRIS
TUNQUIST; SHERIFF‟S SERGEANT
STONE; SHERIFF‟S SERGEANT
PURKIS; THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; CHP OFFICER BRENT
MANGHAM; CHP OFFICER MARK
BUTLER; JANET LEE BARTON, and
DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,

22

ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY AND
STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS

Defendants.

23
24
Pending are dismissal motions, filed under Federal Rule of

25
26

Civil

Procedure

(“Rule”)

27

Defendants

28

Joaquin County Sheriff‟s Department (“Sheriff‟s Department”), San

County

of

San

12(b)(6),
Joaquin

1

by
(“San

the

following

Joaquin

parties:

County”),

San

1

Joaquin County General Hospital (“San Joaquin Hospital”), Deputy

2

Michael Arreola, Deputy Christopher Stiehr, Deputy Christopher

3

Tunquist,

4

Joaquin County General Hospital nurse Janet Lee Barton, R.N.,

5

(collectively

6

California, California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), Brent Mangham and

7

Mark Butler (collectively “the State Defendants”).

Sergeant

“the

Nilida

Stone,

County

Sergeant

Defendants”);

Claude

and

Purkis,

the

San

State

of

8

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint (“Compl.”) that he

9

was subjected to the use of “excessive, cruel and unusual” force

10

“in violation of the Fourth and Eight[h] Amendments to the United

11

States Constitution”, and related state claims.

12

I.

13

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The following allegations in the Complaint concern the

14

motions.

15

defendant

16

“shackled on both his hands and feet.” (Notice of Removal, Ex. A

17

(“Compl.”) ¶¶

18

to the ground,” and “was assaulted by defendant officers with the

19

use of a taser.” (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges the officers

20

then took him to a hospital where the nurses “obtained a blood

21

sample without Plaintiff‟s consent” and the officers directed the

22

nursing

23

inserting a catheter” into Plaintiff‟s penis while “his legs and

24

arms [were] strapped down to a hospital bed.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16-17.)

25

Plaintiff
law

staff

alleges

he

enforcement

was

“arrested

agencies,”

during

and

detained

which

he

by
was

10-11, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also alleges he “fell

to

“forcibly

II.

obtain[]

[his

urine]

by

.

.

.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, the

27

Court determines whether a complaint contains “factual content

28

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
2

1

defendant

2

Iqbal,

3

misconduct is not enough. Id. at 678-79. The “inquiry is limited

4

to

5

accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

6

plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th

7

Cir. 2008). It is inappropriate to assume a plaintiff “can prove

8

facts that [he] has not alleged or that the defendants have

9

violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.”

10

Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council

11

of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

the

is

556

liable
U.S.

[factual]

for

662,

the
678

misconduct
(2009).

allegations

12

in

III.

13

A.

alleged.”

The

the

mere

Ashcroft

v.

possibility

of

[c]omplaint,

which

are

DISCUSSION

State Claims

14

All Defendants argue Plaintiff‟s state claims must be

15

dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege in his Complaint

16

that he complied with California‟s Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), and

17

this

18

lawsuit. Plaintiff concedes in his opposition that he has not

19

alleged compliance with the CTCA and agrees to the requested

20

dismissal. (Pl. Opp‟n Cnty. Defs. Mot. Dismiss (“County Opp‟n”)

21

6:2, ECF No. 13; Pl Opp‟n State Defs. Mot Dismiss (“State Opp‟n”)

22

3:2, ECF No. 14).

is

23
24
25

required

before

these

claims

may

be

included

in

a

Therefore, Plaintiff‟s state claims are dismissed with
leave to amend.
B.

Excessive Force Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

26

1. San Joaquin County

27

San Joaquin County agues Plaintiff‟s excessive force

28

claim against it should be dismissed because Plaintiff “failed to
3

1

make any factual allegation that the County failed to . . . train

2

the [officers] . . . in a way that reflects a deliberate or

3

conscious choice.” (County Defendants‟ Mot. (“County Mot.”) 7:27-

4

28, ECF No. 5-1.)

5

Plaintiff counters that the Complaint “clearly gives

6

Defendants proper notice” because the facts alleged “arguably

7

demonstrate

8

gathering evidence and authorizing the forcible collection of

9

urine from suspects.” (County Opp‟n 3:12-14, 4:21-26.)

10

the

officers‟

“[T]he

lack

inadequacy

of

of

training

[law

and

experience

enforcement

in

officers‟]

11

training may serve as the basis for [a county‟s] liability only

12

where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to

13

the

14

contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,

15

“Under this standard, [Plaintiff] must allege facts to show that

16

the County . . . disregarded the known or obvious consequence

17

that a particular omission in [its] training program would cause

18

[municipal]

19

rights.” Flores v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th

20

Cir. 2014). Plaintiff‟s Complaint does not contain an allegation

21

satisfying

22

granted.

rights

of

persons

employees

this

with

to

standard.

whom

the

violate

Therefore,

[officers]

citizens'

the

come

into

388 (1989)

constitutional

County‟s

motion

is

23

2.

CHP and State of California

24

The CHP and the State of California each seek dismissal

25

with

prejudice

26

U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the CHP “is an agency of the State of

27

California” and the State of California and its agencies are “not

28

considered

a

of

Plaintiff‟s

„person‟

for

federal

claim

[liability]
4

alleged

purposes

of

under

42

section

1

1983....” (Defs.‟ State of Cal. Mot. (“State Mot.”) 5:3-8, ECF

2

No. 6.) Plaintiff “concedes this argument as to the State of

3

California and the California Highway Patrol. . . .” (State Opp‟n

4

3:7-8.)

5
6

Therefore,

the

motion

is

granted

without

leave

to

amend.

7

3.

8

The Sheriff‟s Department and San Joaquin Hospital seek

9

dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff‟s § 1983 claims alleged

10

against them arguing the claims “are improper because each is a

11

department of the County. . ., not a person or separate entity”

12

suable under § 1983.

13

concedes the Sheriff‟s Department and San Joaquin Hospital are

14

not

15

dismissal. (County Opp‟n 6:5-9.)

proper

16

Sheriff’s Department and San Joaquin Hospital

(County Defs.‟ Mot. 13:9-11.) Plaintiff

defendants

Therefore,

the

and

§

does

1983

not

claims

oppose

the

requested

against

the

Sheriff‟s

17

Department and San Joaquin Hospital are dismissed without leave

18

to amend.

19

IV.

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s state claims are

21

DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff‟s excessive force claim

22

against San Joaquin County is DISMISSED with leave to amend, and

23

Plaintiff‟s federal claims against the Sheriff‟s Department, San

24

Joaquin Hospital, CHP and the State of California are DISMISSED

25

without leave to amend.

26

Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days from the date on

27

which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing

28

the deficiencies in any claim that was dismissed with leave to
5

1

amend.

2

Dated:

November 18, 2014

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6