Mann et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 22

ORDER re 15 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/19/2017: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses from the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Police Department's Answer to the Complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED with respect to defendants' first, second, and third defenses and DENIED with respect to the fourth defense. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13

ROBERT MANN SR., VERN MURPHYMANN, DEBORAH MANN, ZACHARY
MANN, and WILLIAM MANN,

14
15

Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 2:17-01201 WBS DB
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSES

v.

16
17
18
19

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SAMUEL D. SOMERS JR., JOHN C.
TENNIS, and RANDY R. LOZOYA
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, plaintiffs move to strike the following affirmative
defenses from defendants City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police
Department’s Answer to the Complaint: (1) immunity for management
decisions under California Government Code § 815.2.2; (2)
immunity under California Government Code § 821.6 for

28
1

1

investigative actions; (3) immunity under California Government

2

Code §856 for the determination to confine or not confine Joseph

3

Mann for mental illness; and (4) defendants Tennis and Lozoya

4

acted in self-defense and in defense of others.

5

“Immunity under § 1983 is governed by federal law;

6

state law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil

7

rights violations.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1144 (9th

8

Cir. 2000)(citing Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284

9

(1980).

For the first three affirmative defenses, defendants

10

assert they are immune under different sections of the California

11

Government Code.

12

federal claims asserted by the plaintiffs.

13

State law cannot provide immunity for the

To hold a municipality to § 1983 liability under Monell

14

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978, there must

15

be an underlying constitutional violation.

16

Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (“If a person has suffered

17

no constitutional injury at the hands of the individual police

18

officer, the fact that the departmental regulations might have

19

authorized the use of constitutionally excessive force is quite

20

beside the point.”); Long v. City and County of Honolulu, 511

21

F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If no constitutional violation

22

occurred, the municipality cannot be held liable . . . .”)

23

See City of Los

There is no underlying constitutional violation if the

24

officers were justified in using self-defense against Joseph

25

Mann.

26

1994)(finding municipality could not be held liable because

27

Officers’ decision to enter the building and use deadly forced

28

complied with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.); Fairley

See Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir,

2

1

v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913, 916 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Exoneration of

2

Officer [] on the charge of excessive force precludes

3

municipality liability for the alleged unconstitutional use of

4

such force.”).

5

not be stricken.

6

The fourth affirmative defense will accordingly

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to

7

Strike Affirmative Defenses from the City of Sacramento and the

8

Sacramento Police Department’s Answer to the Complaint be, and

9

the same hereby is, GRANTED with respect to defendants’ first,

10

second, and third defenses and DENIED with respect to the fourth

11

defense.

12

Dated:

September 19, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3