B.O.L.T. et al v. City of Rancho Cordova et al

Filing 89

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/20/18: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 68 is granted. The Court directs the clerk to enter judgment and close this matter. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 2:14-CV-01588-JAM-DB

B.O.L.T., et al.

12

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
_____________________________________/
20
21

The Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication filed

22

Defendants Chief MICHAEL GOOLD and Sheriff SCOTT JONES come on regularly for hearing

23

on June 26, 2018 before the undersigned. Having considered the Motion and accompanying

24

papers, the opposition and oral argument, the Court made its ruling from the bench. Based

25

thereon, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the Motion for Summary Judgment or,

26

in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as follows:

27

///

28

///
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
{01845667.DOC}

1

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a policy of citing/arresting motorcyclists without

2

probable cause to believe that they have violated the helmet law and/or citing/arresting

3

motorcyclists without specific probable cause to believe that the motorcyclists had actual

4

knowledge of the helmet's noncompliance. Plaintiffs withdrew the claim based on any allegation

5

that Defendants failed to train its officers.

6

The Court first finds that the claims of Plaintiffs DUVAUCHELLE and RABE are barred

7

under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), based on their respective traffic court guilty pleas

8

or convictions of violation of California Vehicle Code section 27803, and Plaintiffs’ concession at

9

oral argument.

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that estoppel bars Plaintiff Haven from

10

asserting his claims in this case, based on this Court’s finding that the issue of probable cause to

11

issue the citation was not actually litigated in traffic court.

12

As to all remaining Plaintiffs on the Monell claim against the Defendants, it is well settled

13

that municipalities are only liable, and the officers in their official capacity are only liable, when

14

the constitutional violation results pursuant to an official municipal policy. Liability attaches

15

where there is (1) an express policy, (2) a long-standing practice or custom, or (3) an isolated

16

constitutional violation by a person with a final policymaking authority.

17

In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to cite a single piece of evidence to support their claim

18

that citations are, in fact, being issued without probable cause. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that

19

Defendants’ written policy is what is causing constitutional violations. Specifically, in the

20

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants’ written

21

policy that admissions and prior warnings may support a finding of probable cause to believe a

22

motorcyclist had actual knowledge of a noncompliant helmet is unconstitutional. This argument is

23

rejected.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
{01845667.DOC}

1

The Ninth Circuit has expressly approved of a prior warning policy as providing probable

2

cause of the actual knowledge requirement. In Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92

3

F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit wrote:

4

Requiring CHP to have probable cause regarding a motorcyclist's actual knowledge
of nonconformity does not prevent the CHP from enforcing the law. The CHP
could increase its efforts to inform the public of what specific helmets do not
comply with Standard 218. Because we vacate the first portion of the injunction,
the CHP may stop motorcyclists based on the appearance of their helmets. If the
officer discovers that a helmet has been determined not to comply with DOT
standards but does not have probable cause to believe that the motorcyclist knows
of the noncompliance, he could give a written warning to the motorcyclist that the
helmet does not comply, and CHP could keep a record of such warnings. If the
motorcyclist is stopped again by the same or a different officer, this notice, or other
information indicating that the individual motorcyclist knew about the helmet's
noncompliance, could satisfy the probable cause of actual knowledge requirement.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit does allow police officers to detain motorcyclists based on the
13
14
15
16
17
18

appearance of their helmets. Those detained may then be arrested, issued a citation, where there is
probable cause that the motorist had actual knowledge of the helmet's noncompliance.

knowledge can be shown by an admission that the motorcyclist knew that the helmet did not
comply. And actual knowledge may also be shown by evidence that the motorcyclist was
previously warned about a helmet's noncompliance and continued to utilize the noncompliant
helmet while riding.

19
20
21
22
23

Thus, this Court finds the Defendants’ policy that admissions or prior warnings provide
evidence of actual knowledge, and thus probable cause, complies with Easyriders. Therefore, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that there was an express policy, a
longstanding practice or custom, or an isolated constitutional violation by a person with final
policymaking authority in which the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated.

24
25
26
27
28

Actual

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 68.) be granted.
///
///
///
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
{01845667.DOC}

1

The Court directs the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants MICHAEL GOOD

2

and SCOTT JONES and against Plaintiffs B.O.L.T., MARK TEMPLE, JEFFREY RABE, LYLE

3

DUVAUCHELLE, WILLIAM LANGHORNE, and LAWRENCE HAVEN, and close this matter.

4
5

Dated: July 20, 2018

6

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12

Approved as to form only:
/s/ Gary W. Gorski (authorized on 7/20/18)
Gary W. Gorski
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
{01845667.DOC}