Villalobos v. City of Vallejo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JOSE VILLALOBOS, No. 2:19-cv-02461 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 CITY OF VALLEJO; and DOES 1-10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Jose Villalobos filed this action against 20 defendants City of Vallejo and Does 1 through 10 alleging various 21 federal and state law claims arising from the wrongful detention 22 of plaintiff. Before the court is defendant City of Vallejo’s 23 motion to dismiss. (Mot. (Docket No. 5).) 24 I. Relevant Allegations 25 Villalobos traveled with his family to St. Catherine of 26 Siena Catholic Church, located in Vallejo, California, to attend 27 a religious service. (Compl. ¶ 15 (Docket No. 1).) Plaintiff 28 then went to the bathroom around the time the evening service was 1 starting. (Id. ¶ 16.) As plaintiff went to open the door to the 2 bathroom, a City of Vallejo police officer who mistook plaintiff 3 for another person snatched his arm behind him and twisted it 4 behind his back. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.) Plaintiff is blind in one 5 eye. (Id. ¶ 18.) As plaintiff turned to see who was attacking 6 him, plaintiff was struck in the cheek and wrestled to the floor. 7 (Id. ¶ 18.) The officers were not wearing police uniforms. (Id. 8 ¶ 17.) Believing he was being robbed, Mr. Villalobos cried, 9 “What’s going on? I’m in church! I don’t have any money!” (Id. 10 ¶ 19.) Mr. Villalobos also stated that he had just had surgery 11 on his shoulder and that he was in church “to pray and relax.” 12 (Id.) It was not until the officers had seated plaintiff in a 13 patrol car that they realized he was the wrong person. (Id. ¶ 14 20.) 15 Plaintiff filed suit alleging the following four causes 16 of action: (1) deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983; (2) battery and (3) negligence under California state 18 law; and (4) violation of California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act 19 (“Tom Bane Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. The City of Vallejo now 20 moves to dismiss only plaintiff’s claim under the Tom Bane Act. 21 II. Legal Standard 22 On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the inquiry before the court 23 is whether, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true 24 and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, 25 the plaintiff has stated a claim to relief that is plausible on 26 its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The 27 plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ 28 but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant 1 has acted unlawfully.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility 2 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 3 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 4 the misconduct alleged.” Id. 5 III. Discussion 6 To state a claim under the Tom Bane Act, plaintiff must 7 allege that the involved officers acted with specific intent to 8 deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Reese v. Cty. of 9 Sacramento (Reese II), 888 F.3d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018). “[A] 10 mere intention to use force that the jury ultimately finds 11 unreasonable -- that is, general criminal intent -- is 12 insufficient.” Id. (citing United States v. Reese (Reese I), 2 13 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. 1993)). “Rather, the jury must find that 14 the defendants ‘intended not only the force, but its 15 unreasonableness, its character as ‘more than necessary under the 16 circumstances.’” Id. (citing Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). “[I]t is 17 not necessary for the defendants to have been ‘thinking in 18 constitutional or legal terms at the time of the incidents.’” Id. 19 at 1045 (quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). Instead, “‘a reckless 20 disregard for a person's constitutional rights is evidence of a 21 specific intent to deprive that person of those rights.’” Id. 22 (quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). 23 Defendant asks the court to infer that Mr. Villalobos 24 resisted arrest and that the force exerted was therefore 25 reasonable. (Mot. at 8 (“The Court may reasonably infer that 26 Plaintiff physically resisted the officers.”).) The court cannot 27 do so. At this stage, the court must make all inferences in 28 favor of plaintiff. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint 1 alleges that plaintiff “turned to see who was attacking him.” 2 (Compl. @ 18.) In response to plaintiff turning, the officer 3 struck plaintiff and wrestled him to the floor. (Id.) Because 4 the complaint alleges no other action by plaintiff, and because 5 the court may infer that plaintiff’s movement was limited by both 6 | his partial blindness and his shoulder injury, the officers’ 7 response was plausibly “more than necessary under the 8 | circumstances” and therefore unreasonable. See Reese II, 888 9 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). 10 Further, because officers continued to exert that force 11 after plaintiff allegedly saw uninformed men, cried that he had 12 no money, and informed the officers of his injured shoulder, the 13 allegations in the complaint plausibly allege the officers 14 intended to exert that unreasonable force or at least acted with 15 a reckless disregard for plaintiff’s fourth amendment right to be 16 | free from excessive force. (See Compl. FI 17-20, 47; id.) The 17 complaint therefore plausibly states a claim under the Tom Bane 18 | Act and the court will not dismiss this claim. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to 20 Dismiss (Docket No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 21 Dated: March 31, 2020 he - ak. 22 WILIAMB SHUBB==~”C~COCOCO 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28