Bonilla-Chirinos, et al. v. City of West Sacramento, et al.

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/12/2018 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendants' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12
13

GUILLERMO BONILLA-CHIRINOS
and SANDRA HERNANDEZ,
individually and as guardians
ad litem of J.B., a minor,

Civ. No. 2:15-2564 WBS EFB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO and
police officers KENNETH
FELLOWS, MICHELLE TATE,
ANTHONY HERRERA, THOMAS
MAGGIANO, JENNIFER GRILLAT,
ERIC ANGLE, MATTHEW LUIZ, and
DAVID STALLIONS, in their
individual and official
capacities,

21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla-Chirinos and Sandra

26

Hernandez, individually and on behalf of their son J.B., brought

27

this action against defendants the City of West Sacramento (“the

28

City”) and several West Sacramento police officers alleging,
1

1

among other things, that defendants used excessive force in

2

arresting them and violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to

3

familial association.

4

(“Summ. J. Order” (Docket No. 40)), which granted summary

5

judgment in whole or in part as to several claims and defendants,

6

the only claims remaining are plaintiffs’ excessive force claims

7

against Kenneth Fellows, Michelle Tate, and Anthony Herrera, and

8

plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment familial association claims

9

against Tate and Thomas Maggiano.

After the court’s Order of July 26, 2017

Before the court is

10

defendants’ second Motion for summary judgment filed November 28,

11

2017, which seeks dismissal of plaintiffs’ familial association

12

claim.

13

(Docket No. 57.)
Notwithstanding any prior characterizations of

14

plaintiffs’ familial association claim, plaintiffs now represent

15

that this claim is asserted by all three plaintiffs and is based

16

on (1) Maggiano’s threat to Hernandez during the arrest to call

17

Child Protective Services (“CPS”) to have J.B. taken away if

18

Hernandez did not cooperate; (2) Maggiano’s and Tate’s refusal of

19

Hernandez’s requests to be allowed to call a family member to

20

pick up J.B., in violation of department policy and state law;

21

(3) Fellows’ failure to enforce this policy; and (4) the failure

22

of Fellows, Maggiano, and Tate to follow department policy

23

requiring the arrest of Bonilla-Chirinos and Hernandez outside

24

the presence of J.B. to minimize the trauma of a child seeing his

25

parents arrested.

26

I.

27
28

The court will address these claims below.

Claim Against Fellows
The court previously granted summary judgment to

Fellows and certain other defendants on the familial association
2

1

claim because “plaintiffs conceded at oral argument [on July 24,

2

2017] that there is no evidence currently before the court

3

supporting the liability of those defendants for deprivation of

4

parental rights.”

5

reconsideration of this order, and only sought to reassert their

6

familial association claim against Fellows after several months.

7

Although plaintiffs attempt to present new theories under which

8

they seek to hold Fellows liable on their familial association

9

claim, they cannot reassert a cause of action after that cause of

(Summ. J. Order 16.)

Plaintiffs did not seek

10

action was dismissed on summary judgment.

11

not revisit its prior decision dismissing the familial

12

association claim as to Fellows.

13

II.

14

Thus, the court will

Maggiano’s Threat to Hernandez
While it is conceivable that a threat to call CPS

15

during an arrest might form the basis of a tort under state law,

16

plaintiffs have not explained how such a threat violates either

17

the child’s or the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to

18

familial association under clearly established law.

19

harassment, verbal abuse, or threats are generally insufficient

20

to state a constitutional deprivation under § 1983.

21

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); Gaut

22

v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987); Martin v. Sargent,

23

780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d

24

143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983).

25

Verbal

See, e.g.,

Plaintiffs cite no authority holding, and the court is

26

unaware of any, that this rule does not apply in the context of a

27

Fourteenth Amendment familial association claim, even though

28

plaintiffs’ claim relates tangentially to the parents’ right to
3

1

make decisions concerning J.B.’s care, custody, or control.

2

Moreover, given the lack of authority stating a plaintiff has a

3

right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from threats with

4

respect to familial association, any such right was not clearly

5

established at the time the threat was made, and qualified

6

immunity applies.

7

1069-70 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Qualified immunity protects government

8

officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate

9

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

See, e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063,

10

reasonable person would have known.”) (citation and internal

11

punctuation omitted).

12

judgment to defendants on the familial association claim to the

13

extent it is based on Maggiano’s threat to call CPS if Hernandez

14

did not cooperate during the arrest.1

15

III. Denial of Hernandez’s Requests to Call Family Member

16

Thus, the court will grant summary

The court previously denied summary judgment for

17

Maggiano and Tate on the familial association claim, finding that

18

Tate’s and Maggiano’s alleged refusal to allow Hernandez to call

19

a relative to pick up J.B. from the residence during the arrest

20

raised a triable issue as to whether Tate and Maggiano unlawfully

21

deprived Bonilla-Chirinos and Hernandez of their Fourteenth

22

Amendment right to the care, custody, and control of J.B.2

The

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Moreover, it is unclear how Tate could be liable for
Maggiano’s alleged threat, and the court will grant summary
judgment for Tate on plaintiffs’ familial association claim to
the extent it is based on Maggiano’s threat on this alternate
basis.
2

It is undisputed that J.B. and Hernandez were taken
together in Fellow’s police car and transported to the West
Sacramento Police Department. At the Department, a social worker
4

1

court further explained that there was no evidence of imminent

2

danger or due process that would appear to justify denial of that

3

request, and that the right to care, custody, and control of

4

one’s child was clearly established before 2013.

5

14-16 (citing, inter alia, Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th

6

Cir. 1997); Bhatti v. Cty. of Sacramento, 281 F. App’x 764, 766

7

(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “no objective social worker could

8

have believed” that depriving a parent custody and control of his

9

son without emergency or due process was lawful, even though the

(Summ. J. Order

10

son remained in the presence of the mother, and even though the

11

father was accused of abuse).)

12

Plaintiffs now add the additional contention that

13

failure to allow Hernandez to make a telephone call to arrange

14

for someone to pick up J.B. violated department policy and state

15

law.

16

alleged refusal to allow Hernandez her requested phone call

17

violated California Penal Code § 851.5(c), which provides that:

18
19
20
21
22

Specifically, plaintiffs contend that Tate’s and Maggiano’s

As soon as practicable upon being arrested but,
except where physically impossible, no later than
three hours after arrest, the arresting or
booking officer shall inquire as to whether the
arrested person is a custodial parent with
responsibility for a minor child. The arresting
or booking officer shall notify the arrested
person who is a custodial parent with
responsibility for a minor child that he or she
is entitled to, and may request to, make two

23
24
25
26
27
28

met with Hernandez and J.B., and Hernandez gave the social worker
the names and contact information for three relatives that lived
nearby, so that J.B. could be placed with someone while Hernandez
and Bonilla-Chirinos were in custody. The social worker was
eventually able to reach J.B.’s uncle via telephone, and after
performing a background check, the social worker transported J.B.
to his uncle’s home. J.B. was then returned to the custody of
Hernandez and Bonilla-Chirinos after their release from jail.
5

1

additional telephone calls at no expense if the
telephone calls are completed to telephone
numbers within the local calling area, or at his
or her own expense if outside the local calling
area, to a relative or other person for the
purpose of arranging for the care of the minor
child or children in the parent’s absence.

2
3
4
5

Cal. Penal Code § 851.5(c).
For the reasons set forth in this court’s Order of July

6
7

26, 2017, summary judgment for Maggiano and Tate on the familial

8

association claim to the extent it is based on Maggiano’s and

9

Tate’s refusal to allow Hernandez to make a phone call at the

10

scene of the arrest to have someone pick up J.B. will be denied.

11

IV.

12

Arrest of Bonilla-Chirinos and Hernandez in J.B.’s Presence
Plaintiffs’ last basis for their familial association

13

claim is that Maggiano and Tate violated department policy by

14

arresting J.B.’s parents in his presence, causing J.B. trauma due

15

to his witnessing of the arrest.

16

theory was properly pled in the Amended Complaint or properly

17

disclosed in the course of this litigation, it is unclear how

18

arresting parents in the presence of a child violates either the

19

child’s or the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right of familial

20

association, much less that such right was clearly established at

21

the time of the arrest.

22

(violation of state departmental regulations do not establish a

23

federal constitutional violation).

24

grant summary judgment to defendants on the familial association

25

claim to the extent it is based on the arrest of Bonilla-Chirinos

26

and Hernandez in J.B.’s presence.

27
28

However, even assuming this

See, e.g., Cousins, 568 F.3d at 1070

Accordingly, the court will

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 57) be, and the same hereby is,
6

1

GRANTED IN PART.

2

defendants Tate and Maggiano on plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action

3

to the extent the cause of action is based on Maggiano’s alleged

4

threat to Hernandez and the arrest of Bonilla-Chirinos and

5

Hernandez in J.B.’s presence.

6

plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action to the extent the cause of

7

action is based on Tate’s and Maggiano’s denial of Hernandez’s

8

request to make a phone call to arrange for someone to pick up

9

J.B. at the scene of the arrest.

10

Dated:

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of

Summary judgment is DENIED on

January 12, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7