Scharringhausen v. County of Trinity, et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/9/15 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION to DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 8 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. Defendants' responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MICHAEL SCHARRINGHAUSEN, No. 2:15-cv-00965-JAM-CMK 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 COUNTY OF TRINITY; SGT. CHRISTOPHER COMPTON; CPL. OMAR BROWN; CPL. RON HANOVER; SGT. MIKE RIST (All Officers serving on the Trinity County Narcotics Task Force); ERIC HERYFORD; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants. 20 21 In the Complaint (Doc. #1), Plaintiff Robert Michael 22 Scharringhausen (“Plaintiff”) alleges two causes of action 23 against Defendants County of Trinity (“the County”); Trinity 24 County District Attorney, Eric Heryford (“Heryford”); and Trinity 25 County Sheriff’s Deputies Christopher Compton (“Compton”), Omar 26 Brown (“Brown”), Ron Hanover (“Hanover”), and Mike Rist (“Rist”) 27 (collectively “the Deputies”). 28 Deputies (collectively “Defendants”) now move to dismiss (Doc. The County, Heryford and the 1 1 #8) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 1 2 3 I. 4 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings the first cause of action against all 5 Defendants. Comp. ¶ 14. In it, Plaintiff alleges that the 6 Deputies conducted a raid on his property, during which they 7 confiscated documents that included privileged communications 8 between Plaintiff and his attorney. 9 were copied and disseminated to “prosecutorial agencies” without Id. ¶ 10. These documents 10 any independent review and at the behest of Heryford. 11 claim alleges a violation of Plaintiff’s attorney-client 12 privilege leading to an unlawful deprivation of “his rights in 13 subsequent criminal defense issues and to his access to the 14 Courts,” and violations of his rights under the Sixth and 15 Fourteenth Amendments. 16 Id. The Id. ¶¶ 11-14. The second cause of action is brought against the Deputies 17 and alleges that they provided knowingly “false and malicious 18 information” regarding Plaintiff’s use of various aliases and his 19 connection to several criminal convictions associated with those 20 aliases. 21 increase Plaintiff’s bail and to prevent him from being released. 22 Id. 23 his liberty.” 24 /// 25 /// Comp. ¶ 16. This information was subsequently used to He alleges the Deputies’ conduct therefore “deprived him of Id. ¶ 17. 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 September 2, 2015. 2 1 II. OPINION 2 A. Judicial Notice 3 Defendants request the Court take notice (Doc. #9) of seven 4 exhibits in support of their motion. 5 Plaintiff argues these documents are not properly noticed at this 6 stage of the litigation. 7 exhibits as impermissible hearsay. 8 9 10 11 Opp. at p. 9. He also objects to the The Court declines to take notice of Defendants’ exhibits. Although the exhibits are public records, they are not necessary for the Court’s consideration of the current motion. B. 12 13 In his Opposition, Discussion 1. Municipal Liability Defendants first challenge Plaintiff’s claims against the 14 County. 15 premised on a respondeat superior theory of liability as the 16 Complaint makes no allegations regarding an official policy or 17 custom of the County. 18 MTD at pp. 5-6. They argue the claim is improperly In his Opposition, Plaintiff recites case law regarding the 19 imposition of liability on a municipal defendant, but does not 20 directly address Defendants’ arguments or point to any support in 21 the Complaint for a claim based on Monell v. Department of Social 22 Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 23 Opp. at p. 2. To properly state a Monell claim, allegations in a complaint 24 “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but 25 must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give 26 fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 27 effectively.” 28 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 3 1 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)). 2 theories of municipal liability: (1) when official policies or 3 established customs inflict a constitutional injury; (2) when 4 omissions or failures to act amount to a local government policy 5 of deliberate indifference to constitutional rights; or (3) when 6 a local government official with final policy-making authority 7 ratifies a subordinate's unconstitutional conduct.” 8 Seipert, No. 2:15-CV-00355-KJM, 2015 WL 5173075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 9 2015) (citing Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 10 11 “A Monell claim may be stated under three Sants v. 1249–50 (9th Cir. 2010)). The Complaint is devoid of allegations supporting any of 12 these theories of Monell liability. 13 Defendants, the only connection the County had to the underlying 14 conduct was that it employed the Deputies. 15 held liable pursuant to §1983 based upon a respondeat superior 16 theory. 17 to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against the 18 County. 19 Monell liability through the claims against the individual 20 Defendants in their official capacities, they are dismissed on 21 the same grounds. 22 1079, 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Official capacity suits generally 23 represent only another way of pleading an action against the 24 entity that employs the agent.”) 25 As pointed out by See Sants, 2015 WL 5173075, at *3. The County cannot be Defendants’ Motion Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to impose See Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 914 F. Supp. 2d Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice and without 26 leave to amend is appropriate “only if it appears beyond doubt 27 that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 28 claim which would entitle him to relief.” 4 Navarro v. Block, 250 1 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation 2 marks omitted). 3 cannot properly plead a Monell claim, any municipal liability 4 claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 5 6 2. Because the Court is not certain that Plaintiff First Cause of Action Plaintiff’s first cause of action is based on the alleged 7 seizure and dissemination of documents protected by the attorney- 8 client privilege. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Comp. ¶¶ 10-14; Opp. at p. 9. The Ninth Circuit has discussed the constitutional nature of the attorney-client privilege: Standing alone, the attorney-client privilege is merely a rule of evidence; it has not yet been held a constitutional right. See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 466 n. 15 (1975); Beckler v. Superior Court, 568 F.2d 661, 662 (9th Cir. 1978). In some situations, however, government interference with the confidential relationship between a defendant and his counsel may implicate Sixth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). Such an intrusion violates the Sixth Amendment only when it substantially prejudices the defendant. United States v. Irwin, 612 F.2d 1182, 1186-87 (9th Cir. 1980); see United States v. Glover, 596 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 860 (1979). 19 Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1985) 20 (emphasis added). 21 Defendants contend there are no allegations in the Complaint 22 that the alleged conduct interfered with Plaintiff’s relationship 23 with his counsel or resulted in “substantial prejudice.” 24 p. 9. Defendants are correct. 25 MTD at The Complaint fails to properly allege that Plaintiff was 26 substantially prejudiced by the seizure and dissemination of the 27 documents. 28 establish a constitutional violation cognizable under §1983. The alleged conduct in and of itself does not 5 Nor 1 do Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that his rights were 2 violated establish the necessary element of prejudice. 3 therefore dismisses the first cause of action but does so with 4 leave to amend. 5 6 3. The Court Prosecutorial Immunity Because the only claim brought against Heryford has been 7 dismissed, the Court need not and does not address Defendants’ 8 arguments regarding prosecutorial immunity. 9 10 4. Second Cause of Action Defendants contend Plaintiff’s second cause of action should 11 be dismissed because it fails to assert a viable claim regarding 12 Plaintiff’s bail and confinement in jail. 13 MTD at p. 10-11. It is unclear from the face of the Complaint exactly what is 14 the basis for Plaintiff’s second cause of action. 15 adopts the plausible interpretation utilized by Defendants in 16 their Motion that Plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim for 17 violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive 18 bail, despite the Complaint completely failing to reference the 19 Eighth Amendment. 20 in his Opposition, as he fails to address Defendants’ arguments 21 and includes only one sentence referencing this second cause of 22 action. 23 The Court Plaintiff does nothing to resolve the mystery Opp. at p. 9. The Complaint alleges that the Deputies fabricated previous 24 convictions in order to deny Plaintiff bail. 25 However, in California, judicial officers are vested with the 26 exclusive authority to enhance or reduce bail, not law 27 enforcement. 28 claim against the Deputies, Plaintiff must establish that their See Cal. Penal Code § 1269c. 6 Comp. ¶¶ 16, 18. In order to state a 1 conduct caused the constitutional violation. 2 traditional tort law principles of causation, which we apply to § 3 1983 claims, . . . a judicial officer's exercise of independent 4 judgment in the course of his official duties is a superseding 5 cause that breaks the chain of causation linking law enforcement 6 personnel to the officer's decision . . . .” 7 Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 663-64 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 can only be held liable under Plaintiff’s theory “if they 9 prevented the [judicial officer] from exercising his independent “Pursuant to Galen v. Cnty. of The Deputies 10 judgment.” 11 requires two key elements: (1) that law enforcement “deliberately 12 or recklessly misled” the judicial officer; and (2) that the 13 plaintiff’s bail “would not have been unconstitutionally 14 excessive but for the officers' misrepresentations.” 15 Complaint does not include any factual allegations that the bail 16 was in fact constitutionally “excessive” or that it would not 17 have been set at that level but for the Deputies’ 18 misrepresentations. 19 allegations that the fabrications were used “to increase 20 Plaintiff’s bail” and therefore his rights were violated. 21 ¶¶ 16-18. 22 claim for relief and is dismissed. 23 Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that such a claim Id. The Rather, it simply makes conclusory and vague Comp. Plaintiff’s second cause of action fails to state a It is not clear to the Court that amendment of this claim 24 would be futile, and therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend. 25 However, as to this claim, and any other claim which the Court is 26 granting leave to amend, Plaintiff is “admonished that failure to 27 cure the defects identified in this Order will be grounds for 28 dismissal without further leave to amend.” 7 See Dick v. Am. Home 1 Mortgage Servicing, Inc., CIV. 2:13-00201 WBS, 2013 WL 5299180, 2 at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2013). 3 4 5 III. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 6 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 7 First Amended Complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days 8 from the date of this Order. 9 due within twenty (20) days thereafter. 10 11 Defendants’ responsive pleading is IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Plaintiff’s October 9, 2015 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

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?