Gary Daniel James Kennedy v. James Ruben Bedgood et al

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 41 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY DANIEL JAMES KENNEDY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
JAMES RUBEN BEDGOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
Docket No. 41

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 15-cv-01404-EMC

13

For the reasons stated on the record during the December 20, 2016 hearing, the Court

14

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

15

(Docket No. 41). This order is intended to memorialize and supplement that ruling.

16

As indicated at the hearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the

17

Pleadings as to Defendant Bedgood with respect to Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim, but DENIES the

18

motion with respect to all other claims. With respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim,

19

Defendants did not carry their burden of proving that Plaintiff’s nolo contendere plea to a charge

20

of resisting arrest under Cal. Penal Code § 69 was based on facts inherently inconsistent with an

21

excessive force claim. That claim is therefore not, at least at this stage, barred by the doctrine of

22

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal. 4th 885, 899

23

(2008); Hooper v. Cty. of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the California

24

Supreme Court has explained that “Heck and California law express similar concerns about

25

judicial economy and the avoidance of conflicting resolutions,” Yount, 43 Cal. 4th at 902, the

26

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and all state claims

27

other than the Bane Act claim. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claim is based on allegations that

28

Bedgood, along with the other officers present, continued to assault Plaintiff even after he was

1

arrested, cf. Rodriguez v. City of Modesto, 535 F. App’x 643, 644-45 (9th Cir. 2013), the

2

allegations in the Complaint are too conclusory. See Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 26. Plaintiff may

3

amend his Complaint to add additional detail regarding precisely what actions each remaining

4

defendant herein took after Plaintiff had been handcuffed.

5

With respect to the Bane Act claim, Plaintiff makes no “showing of coercion independent

6

from the coercion inherent” in his excessive force claim. Shoyoye v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.

7

App. 4th 947, 959 (2012). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion with respect to the

8

Bane Act claim only. Plaintiff may amend the complaint within 20 days to make the requisite

9

showing.

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 41.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: December 21, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2