Fagan v. County of Sacramento

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 04/06/16 ORDERING that the County's 18 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to the second claim in plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JORDAN FAGAN,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-01755-JAM-KJN

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; JOHN
DOE; JAMES DOE; JANE DOE; and
DOES 1–20, inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
Defendant County of Sacramento (the “County”) seeks to

19
20

dismiss the claim brought against it in Jordan Fagan’s First

21

Amended Complaint, because he fails to adequately state a Monell

22

claim.

23

with prejudice. 1

24

///

25

///

For the following reasons, the County’s motion is granted

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 March 22, 2016.
1

1
2
3
4

I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of this motion, the following facts are taken
as true by the Court.
While detained at the Sacramento County Jail on July 24,

5

2014, two unidentified Deputy Sheriff Defendants handcuffed and

6

transferred Plaintiff from one room to another.

7

for Civil Rights Violation (FAC) ¶ 13.

8

Deputy Sheriff Defendant approached Plaintiff and swept his “feet

9

from underneath him.”

Id.

First Am. Compl.

A third unidentified

As a result, Plaintiff’s face hit the

10

ground, causing three broken teeth and a laceration underneath

11

his bottom lip.

12

with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (the

13

“Department”), and he received a letter from the Department,

14

dated December 2, 2014, sustaining his complaint. Id. ¶ 14.

15

Id.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on August 18, 2015

16

(Doc. #1), and the County moved to dismiss the complaint on

17

September 10, 2015 (Doc. #5).

18

motion with leave to amend on January 7, 2016 (Doc. #13).

19

Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint, which includes

20

two claims for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the

21

first claim brought against three Doe Defendants and the second

22

claim brought against the County (Doc. #16).

23

motion to dismiss on January 26, 2016, accompanied by requests

24

for judicial notice (Doc. #18).

25

(Doc. #20).

The Court granted the County’s

The County filed a

Plaintiff filed an opposition

26
27
28
2

1

II.

OPINION

2

A.

Judicial Notice

3

The County requests the Court judicially notice (Doc. #18-2)

4

the First Amended Complaint and the Court’s order on January 7,

5

2016.

6

already part of the record in this case, and therefore, the

7

request is denied as unnecessary.

The First Amended Complaint and the Court’s order are

8

B.

Analysis

9

The County argues, inter alia, that the second claim brought

10

against it—for excessive force under § 1983—must be dismissed

11

because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to

12

establish “the existence of a County policy or custom that was

13

deliberately indifferent to [P]laintiff’s constitutional rights.”

14

Mem. of P. & A. ISO Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss FAC (“Mot.”) 3:24–26.

15

Plaintiff opposes, arguing his factual allegations against

16

the County are sufficient to proceed to discovery.

17

ISO Opp’n to Mot. (“Opp’n”) 1:22–24.

18

Pl.’s P. & A.

“[A] municipality can be sued under § 1983, but it cannot be

19

held liable unless a municipal policy or custom caused the

20

constitutional injury.”

21

Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993). A

22

“policy or custom” under Monell v. Department of Social Services

23

of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is “a longstanding

24

practice . . . which constitutes the standard operating procedure

25

of the local government entity.”

26

Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation

27

marks omitted).

28

policy, as well as its causal relationship to the constitutional

Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics

Ulrich v. City & Cty. of San

“Furthermore, the complaint must allege the

3

1

injury, in sufficient detail.”

2

Dep’t, 2014 WL 1616440, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014).

3

Hass v. Sacramento Cty. Sheriff’s

Plaintiff points to the following new factual allegations in

4

his First Amended Complaint: “Plaintiff is informed and believes

5

that Deputy Sheriffs at the Sacramento County jail has [sic] had

6

a custom of using excessive force and that Defendant County of

7

Sacramento has had a history of not investigating constitutional

8

violations and/or not punishing Deputy Sheriff’s for such acts.”

9

FAC ¶ 35.

This does not plead facts sufficient to support that

10

the County had an impermissible policy or custom that violated

11

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

12

First Amended Complaint is similarly insufficient.

13

Plaintiff alleges just one, specific instance of interaction

14

between Plaintiff and the Deputy Sheriffs; this single instance

15

is insufficient to allege a policy or custom of using excessive

16

force.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s
Specifically,

17

In his opposition brief, Plaintiff relies on Hunter v.

18

County of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011), arguing it

19

establishes a factual basis for his second claim.

20

that in Hunter, plaintiffs’ expert “found that officials in the

21

[Sacramento County] Main Jail repeatedly failed to investigate

22

incidents of excessive force and to take disciplinary action

23

against guards who used such force, despite the existence of an

24

official policy prohibiting the use of excessive force.”

25

1234; Opp’n 6:17–21.

26

“Hunter establishes no factual basis for the instant claim.”

27

Reply to Opp’n 3:21.

28

He explains

Id. at

The Court agrees with the County that

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s second claim brought against
4

1

the County is dismissed.

2

properly plead a claim against the County and the Court finds

3

that any further attempt to amend would be futile.

4

Plaintiff has had two opportunities to

Although the County states it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s

5

entire First Amended Complaint, Notice of Mot. & Mot. to Dismiss

6

FAC 1:22–23, Plaintiff’s first claim is not brought against the

7

County, and the County has not asserted any reason for dismissal

8

of this claim.

9

the second claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s first claim survives but

10
11

III.

ORDER

12

For the reasons set forth above, the County’s motion is

13

GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to the second claim in Plaintiff’s

14

First Amended Complaint.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2016

/s/ John A. Mendez
HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5