Johnson v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department

Filing 16

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting Defendant County of Alameda's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint by September 30, 2015.(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
ETTA JOHNSON,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. 15-cv-02418 LB
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
13
14

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; DOES 1-5,

15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

[ECF No. 10 ]

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff Etta Johnson filed this pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to actions

19

she alleges the Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies took against her while she was at Highland

20

Hospital. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.1) She has named as defendants in the action the County of

21

Alameda,2 and officers of the Alameda County Sheriff’s department, currently identified as Doe

22

defendants. (Id.) The County of Alameda has moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint under Rule

23

12(b)(6) arguing that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts establishing a plausible Monell claim

24

against the County. (Motion, ECF No. 10.) The parties have consented to magistrate judge

25
26

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.

27
2

28

The plaintiff has erroneously sued the County of Alameda as the “Alameda County
Sheriff’s Department.”
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

1

jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 8, 11.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter

2

suitable for determination without oral argument. Upon consideration of the record in this case, the

3

parties’ moving papers, and the applicable legal authority, the court GRANTS the defendant County

4

of Alameda’s motion to dismiss.

5
6

STATEMENT
I. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS

7

On or about August 18, 2014, the plaintiff alleges that she was assaulted by a young man on

8

Clay Street in Oakland. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 5.) According to the plaintiff, the man “grabbed

9

[her] keys, which were hooked around [her] right thumb and tried to grab [her] bag.” (Id.) Police

10

officers came and issued the man a ticket. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Later that day, the plaintiff had pain in her thumb “from when [her] keys were ripped

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

out of her hand,” and she “was having a headache,” so she decided to go to the hospital. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

13

When the plaintiff stopped her car at 14th Street and Brush Street, the man who assaulted her

14

earlier that day “came up and kicked the right front panel” of the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff “was

15

very upset by the events that day and returned back to [her] house,” and called the police. (Id. at ¶

16

9.)

17

Officers from the Oakland Police Department arrived, made a report of the car damage and

18

summoned an ambulance for the plaintiff at her request. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The ambulance took the

19

plaintiff to Highland Hospital (Id.)

20

The plaintiff believes that the hospital gave her a “sedative and a narco for pain.” (Id. at ¶ 11.)

21

Some time later, the plaintiff alleges that she was awakened by a nurse and was told she was going

22

to be released from the hospital. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The plaintiff alleges that two nurses escorted her to the

23

lobby because she was “unstable from the medication.” (Id.)

24

The plaintiff alleges that “the nurses were going to leave [her] in the lobby, and that two

25

[Alameda County] Sheriff’s deputies in the lobby said no. They told the nurses to give [the plaintiff]

26

to them.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) The plaintiff asserts that “telling [her] that [she] was going to jail, the

27

deputies threw [her] to the floor forcing [her] to land on the left side of [her] face causing severe

28

injury and pain.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) The plaintiff alleges that the female officer “put her knee into [the
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

2

1

plaintiff’s] back” causing pain, bruises and continuing injury. (Id.) The male officer allegedly

2

“grabbed [the plaintiff’s] arms, and aggressively pulled back her right thumb” causing her severe

3

pain and reportedly “tearing the tendon.” (Id.)

4

The officers then allegedly “pulled [the plaintiff] out in front of the hospital, put [her] against

5

their car, and searched [her].” The plaintiff alleges that the deputies then “dragged [her] back

6

into the hospital and put [her] into a holding cell, still handcuffed, without any information about

7

why [she] was being arrested.” (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.)

8
9

The plaintiff then alleges that the female officer went through the files in the plaintiff’s purse,
and took out the plaintiff’s “ID.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) The Sheriff’s deputy then allegedly “ran” the

arrested.” (Id.) The plaintiff claims “[b]oth officers looked very nervous.” (Id.) The plaintiff then

12
For the Northern District of California

plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff asserts that she heard the Sheriff’s deputy say: “Oh my god, she’s not

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

told the Sheriff’s deputies that she wanted to go back into the hospital, but the deputies “told her

13

[she] couldn’t” and would not “allow [her] to return to the hospital to have her injuries looked at.”

14

(Id. at ¶ 19.) Instead, another Sheriff’s deputy came and dropped the plaintiff off at her house. (Id. at

15

¶ 20.)

16

The plaintiff alleges that her thumb became swollen and that she had pains down her arm. (Id. at

17

¶ 21.) A few days later, the plaintiff returned to the hospital. (Id.) The plaintiff alleges that she has

18

ongoing pain in her back, thumb and arm and that she has received treatment from an orthopedist.

19

She has also received treatment from a chiropractor for pain in her back allegedly caused by the

20

deputy putting her knee into the plaintiff’s spine. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.)

21
22

ANALYSIS
I. LEGAL STANDARD

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain

24

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A

25

complaint must therefore provide a defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the

26

grounds for relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation and

27

citation omitted).

28

A court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when it does
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

3

1

not contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 U.S.

2

at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

3

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

4

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability

5

requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

6

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

7

dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

8

his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

9

the elements of a cause of action will not do. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and

10

parentheticals omitted).
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus, 551

13

U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007).

14

II. DISCUSSION

15

The County of Alameda moves to dismiss the claim against it on the grounds that the plaintiff’s

16

§ 1983 claim fails to establish a plausible Monell claim against the County. (Motion, ECF No. 10 at

17

1.) The plaintiff does not oppose the County’s motion to dismiss, but requests that the court grant

18

her leave to amend to add the names of the deputies involved. (Response, ECF No. 13 at 2.) The

19

County asks that the court grants its motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend,

20

but it does not oppose the plaintiff’s request that the court grant her leave to amend the complaint to

21

add the names of the deputies involved. (Reply, ECF No. 14 at 1-2.)

22

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a right secured

23

by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the violation was committed

24

by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Wilkins v.

25

Alameda Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. C 15-1706 LB, 2015 WL 2250132, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13,

26

2015). Local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official

27

policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91

28

(1978). A municipality, however, may not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

4

1

its employees under the theory of respondeat superior. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520

2

U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th

3

Cir. 1995).

4

To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff

5

must show: “(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [she] was deprived; (2)

6

that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the

7

plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional

8

violation.” See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997)

9

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). For municipal liability, a plaintiff must plead

defendant to effectively defend itself, and these facts must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is

12
For the Northern District of California

sufficient facts regarding the specific nature of the alleged policy, custom or practice to allow the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

entitled to relief. See AE v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012). It is not

13

sufficient to merely allege that a policy, custom or practice existed or that individual officers'

14

wrongdoing conformed to a policy, custom or practice. See id. at 636-68. See also Wilkins v.

15

Alameda Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. C 15-1706 LB, 2015 WL 2250132, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 13,

16

2015)

17

Here, the plaintiff does not allege any policy, custom or practice by Alameda County or the

18

Alameda County Sheriff’s department that would support a claim for municipal liability under

19

Monell. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) While the plaintiff has not opposed Alameda County’s motion to

20

dismiss, even if no request to amend is made, the court should grant leave to amend “unless it

21

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v.

22

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern

23

California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)). The court therefore grants the

24

motion to dismiss against the County, but does so without prejudice at this stage of the proceedings.

25

The court grants the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint to add the names of the

26

deputies.

27
28
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

5

CONCLUSION

1
2

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the County of Alameda’s motion to dismiss and the

3

County of Alameda is dismissed from this action without prejudice. The plaintiff may file an

4

Amended Complaint consistent with this order by September 30, 2015.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15-cv-02418 LB
ORDER

6