Barrera et al v. City of Woodland et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/21/2018 GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING Claim 2 of the plaintiffs' 14 Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL BARRERA, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CITY OF
KRAUSE,
OFFICER
OFFICER

15
16

WOODLAND, SERGEANT
SERGEANT DAVIS,
WRIGHT, OFFICER GRAY,
LAL, et al.,

18

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2:18-cv-00329-JAM-DB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.

17

19

No.

The mother, father, and children of decedent Michael Barrera
(“Barrera”)

are

“Plaintiffs”).

plaintiffs

in

this

Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1.

action

(collectively,

They bring several federal

and state law claims against Defendants, the City of Woodland,
Sergeant Davis, Officer Wright, Officer Gray, Officer Lal, former
Police Chief Dan Bellini, and 25 John and Jane Doe officers
(collectively, “Defendants”).

Id. at 2-4.

Plaintiffs allege that,

on February 8, 2017, Defendants used excessive force to restrain
Barrera while he was suffering from a psychotic break.
5.

The confrontation resulted in his death.

28
1

Id. at 5.

Id. at 4Plaintiffs

1

argue that the officers’ use of force was excessive under the

2

Fourth Amendment, and that it violated Barrera’s substantive Due

3

Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Id. at 7-9.

4

Defendants bring this Motion to Dismiss, arguing the Section

5

1983 action under the Fourteenth Amendment fails to state a claim.

6

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6).

7

following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.

8

I.

9
10

Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 15.

For the

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In deciding this motion, the Court takes the facts below as
true.

11

In early February, Michael Barrera was walking outside his

12

apartment, suffering a psychotic break.

13

neighbors saw Barrera, and called the Woodland Police Department.

14

Id.

15

arrived at the scene. Id.

16

history of mental illness.

17

Compl. at 4.

Concerned

Officer Lal, along with Sergeants Davis and Krause later
They were all familiar with Barrera’s
Id.

The officers ordered Barrera to get down on the ground.

18

Krause had his sidearm drawn.

19

equipped with tasers.

20

Davis took him to the ground; Krause took hold of Barrera’s arm,

21

and Lal tased him.

22

Id.

Lal and Davis were both

When Barrera responded by walking away,

Id.

Krause continued to restrain Barrera.

Id.

Lal deployed his

23

taser two more times, while Davis struck Barrera several times in

24

the face.

25

Id.

At some point, Officers Gray and Wright arrived.

Id.

Gray

26

grabbed onto Barrera’s legs as other officers secured Barrera in

27

handcuffs.

28

he couldn’t breathe.

Id.

Facedown in the mud, Barrera told the officers
Wright dug his knee into the back of
2

1

Barrera’s shoulder. Id.

Before becoming completely unresponsive,

2

Barrera began to vomit.

Id. at 5.

He later died.

Id. at 5.

3
4

II.

OPINION

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff to

6

set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

7

the pleader is entitled to relief.”

8

A pleading will be dismissed for failing to state a claim if the

9

facts, as alleged, do not support a plausible claim for relief.

10

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

11

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

Defendants correctly argue that established law precludes a

12

Section 1983 claim premised on substantive due process when

13

plaintiffs my base their claim on a more specific provision of

14

the Constitution.

15

(“Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises . . . [during]

16

an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most

17

properly characterized as [] invoking the protections of the

18

Fourth Amendment.”); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994)

19

(plurality opinion).

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)

20

An important caveat modifies this line of precedent: to

21

prompt the Graham limitation on substantive due process, the

22

claim must squarely implicate a more specific provision.

23

of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843-44(1998). For example,

24

in Lewis, the Court allowed a Section 1983 claim to be based on

25

substantive due process because the officers’ failure to seize

26

Lewis kept their conduct outside the Fourth Amendment’s reach.

27

Id.

28

506 F. 3d. 851, 852–53 (2007), the Ninth Circuit explained that

County

Similarly, in Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley,

3

1

Crown Point’s claim could be tethered to substantive due process

2

because the challenged regulation did not “substantially advance

3

legitimate interests,” and thus, fell outside the Takings Clause.

4

But here, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to suggest that

5

the excessive force claim falls outside the Fourth Amendment.

6

Unlike in Lewis, the officers—by their own accounts—seized

7

Barrera.

8

624 (1991) (describing a “seizure” as a submission to an

9

officer’s show of authority).

10

Compl. at 4.

See also Cal. v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621,

The Fourth Amendment’s protections

cover the officers’ conduct following that seizure.

Id. at 624.

11

As Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 explains, no more are the days

12

when the Fourteenth Amendment could be used to bolster section

13

1983 claims against particularly egregious misconduct.

14

specific provision of the Constitution applies, substantive due

15

process doesn’t.

16

If a more

Id.

Because Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 bars Plaintiffs from

17

bringing a Section 1983 action rooted in substantive due process,

18

their second claim fails to allege a plausible cause of action.

19
20

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

21

Defendant’s Motion.

22

to amend the complaint would be futile and therefore the claim is

23

dismissed with prejudice.

24
25

The Court also finds that further attempts

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 21, 2018

26
27
28
4