Zeen v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 8 Motion to Dismiss. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DANE ZEEN,

Case No. 17-cv-02056-LB
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 8

15

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that two Sonoma County deputy sheriffs used excessive

18

force when they responded to a call to conduct a welfare check on him and injured him, allegedly

19

causing a concussion, a nasal deformity, three fractured teeth requiring surgery and a bone graft,

20

facial lacerations requiring stitches, and other injuries.1 One of the two deputies — Deputy Charles

21

Blount — moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not allege facts sufficient to

22

state a claim against him.2 The court finds that it can decide the matter without oral argument, see

23

Civ. L. R. 7-1(b), and denies the motion.
A complaint must contain a ―short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

24
25

entitled to relief‖ to give the defendant ―fair notice‖ of what the claims are and the grounds upon

26
27

Complaint – ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 11–15. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖);
pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

28

2

1

Motion – ECF No. 8 at 1–2.

ORDER – No. 17-cv-02056-LB

1

which they rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 50 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A

2

complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but ―a plaintiff‘s obligation to provide the

3

‗grounds‘ of his ‗entitlement to relief‘ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

4

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to

5

raise a claim for relief above the speculative level . . . .‖ Twombly, 550 at 555 (internal citations

6

omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations,

7

accepted as true, ―‗to state a claim to relief that it is plausible on its face.‘‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

9

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). ―A claim has facial plausibility when

10

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.‖ Id. ―The plausibility standard is not akin to a

12

‗probability requirement,‘ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

13

unlawfully.‖ Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). ―Where a complaint pleads facts that are

14

‗merely consistent with‘ a defendant‘s liability, it ‗stops short of the line between possibility and

15

plausibility of ‗entitlement to relief.‘‖ Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
The complaint meets this standard. It describes the events that precipitated the officers‘ arrival,

16
17

the context for their engagement with the plaintiff, and his resulting injuries. And it pleads

18

sufficiently that the officers used force that was not objectively reasonable given the

19

circumstances that faced the officers. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 481 n. 12

20

(9th Cir. 2007).
The defendants‘ arguments do not change this outcome. They assert that the plaintiff alleges

21

22

only that Deputy Blount grabbed the plaintiff‘s arm — a trivial complaint that on its face is not

23

objectively unreasonable — and that the complaint plausibly establishes a constitutional claim

24

only against Deputy Yount, who ―took him to the ground,‖ thereby causing the injuries.3 The court

25

thinks that this parses the complaint too severely. Read as a whole, the complaint plausibly alleges

26

objectively unreasonable force by both deputies, acting together. And as the plaintiff points out, a

27
28

3

Id. at 2 (citing Complaint ¶ 13).

ORDER – No. 17-cv-02056-LB

2

1

plaintiff does not have to plead evidence not ascertainable except through discovery.4
The court appreciates the defendants‘ argument but thinks it better to raise it in a summary-

2
3

judgment motion. This disposes of ECF No. 8.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: June 19, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Opposition – ECF No. 11 at 3 (collecting cases).

ORDER – No. 17-cv-02056-LB

3