O'Neel v. City of Folsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 FAUN O’NEEL, individually and as No. 2:21-cv-02403 WBS DB Guardian Ad Litem for her 13 children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T., 14 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Plaintiff, TO DISMISS 15 v. 16 CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; 17 SPENSER HEICHLINGER, an individual; MELANIE CATANIO, an 18 individual; LOU WRIGHT, an individual; [FNU] AUSTIN, an 19 individual; [FNU] HUSAR, an individual, DOE CITY OF FOLSOM 20 DEFENDANTS, individuals; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public entity; 21 DOE DCFAS DEFENDANTS, individuals; and DOES 1 through 22 10, inclusive, 23 Defendant. 24 ----oo0oo---- 25 26 Plaintiff Faun O’Neel, individually and on behalf of 27 her children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T. (collectively, 28 “plaintiffs”), brought this § 1983 action against the City of 1 Folsom (“City”); various Folsom police officers; the County of 2 Sacramento; and various Sacramento Department of Child, Family 3 and Adult Services (“DCFAS”) officials, challenging defendants’ 4 alleged unlawful entry of O’Neel’s home and their alleged 5 unlawful seizure and removal of B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T. (See 6 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Docket No. 37).) 7 Defendants City, Heichlinger, Catanio, Wright, Austin, 8 and Husar now move to dismiss Count Four as to Heichlinger, 9 Austin, and Husar, and the prayer for injunctive relief of 10 plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 35, 37.) 11 This Order does not recite a full background of the 12 case as the court has done so in its prior Order dated July 15, 13 2022. (See Order at 2–5 (Docket No. 32).) 14 I. Discussion 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for 16 dismissal when the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim 17 upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 18 The inquiry before the court is whether, accepting the 19 allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable 20 inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, the complaint has stated “a 21 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 22 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 23 A. False Imprisonment Claim Against Defendants Heichlinger, Austin, and Husar 24 25 This court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ false 26 imprisonment claim against defendants Heichlinger, Austin, and 27 Husar due to the absence of any factual allegations that these 28 defendants were present during the December 22, 2020 visit to 1 plaintiffs’ home. (Order at 15, 23.) Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 2 Complaint similarly does not contain any such allegations. (See 3 SAC at ¶ 52.) It appears that the inclusion of defendants 4 Heichlinger, Austin, and Husar under Count Four in the Second 5 Amended Complaint was in error as plaintiffs’ reply stated that 6 these defendants “are no longer named parties in the suit.” 7 (Pls.’ Opp’n. at 3 (Docket No. 39).) Accordingly, plaintiffs’ 8 false imprisonment claim will be dismissed as against defendants 9 Heichlinger, Austin, and Husar. 10 B. Prayer for Injunctive Relief 11 Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive 12 relief should be stricken due to lack of standing. Article III 13 standing has three elements: “(1) injury-in-fact--plaintiff must 14 allege concrete and particularized and actual or imminent harm to 15 a legally protected interest; (2) causal connection--the injury 16 must be fairly traceable to the conduct complained of; and (3) 17 redressability--a favorable decision must be likely to redress 18 the injury-in-fact.” Barnum Timber Co. v. U.S. EPA, 633 F.3d 19 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 20 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 With respect to the first element, “[p]ast exposure to 22 harmful or illegal conduct does not necessarily [establish 23 sufficient injury] if the plaintiff does not continue to suffer 24 adverse effects . . . [n]or does speculation or subjective 25 apprehension about future harm support standing.” See Mayfield 26 v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 27 quotation marks and citations omitted). When a plaintiff has 28 previously been wronged, in order to sustain a claim for future 1 injunctive relief, she must show that she “will again be wronged 2 in a similar way.” Id. 3 Standing must be separately established for each form 4 of relief sought. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 5 956, 967 (9th Cir. 2018). A plaintiff must allege sufficient 6 facts to demonstrate standing at the pleading stage. Spokeo, 7 Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). 8 Considering the Supreme Court’s admonition that Article 9 III standing must be established at the pleading stage, it is 10 appropriate to evaluate plaintiff’s standing for injunctive 11 relief on this motion. See Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338. See also 12 Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 971 (9th Cir. 13 2018) (analyzing standing to seek injunctive relief at the 14 motion-to-dismiss stage); Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 471 15 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2006) (analyzing standing to seek 16 injunctive relief at the judgment-on-the-pleadings stage). 17 While plaintiffs cite three cases in which district 18 courts declined to consider striking a prayer for injunctive 19 relief at the motion-to-dismiss stage, they are not precisely on 20 point. (See Pls.’ Opp’n. at 5.) In these cases, the courts 21 declined to broadly consider the merits of injunctive relief, not 22 the narrower issue of standing. See Fratus v. Mazyck, No. 2:16- 23 cv-0076 KJM EFB, 2017 WL 531842, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017), 24 report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:16-cv-0076 KJM EFB, 2017 25 WL 950441 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017); Zepeda v. Tate, No. 1:07-cv- 26 0982 SMM, 2010 WL 4977596, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010); 27 Friends of Frederick Seig Grove #94 v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 28 124 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1172 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Plaintiffs also 1 cited Cox Communications PCS v. City of San Marcos, which is 2 inapposite as it involved the dismissal of a “cause of action” 3 for injunctive relief that was improperly pled and duplicative. 4 See 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1283 (S.D. Cal. 2002). 5 Because plaintiffs do not allege facts indicating 6 either an ongoing injury or a likelihood of future harm, they 7 cannot establish injury-in-fact. The Second Amended Complaint 8 does not suggest that defendants are still preventing plaintiff 9 O’Neel from having custody of her children, nor does it provide 10 reason to believe that defendants will experience similar wrongs 11 in the future. The initial involvement of police officers was 12 the result of D.O. allegedly lying to B.T. by stating that O’Neel 13 had picked him up by the neck, leading B.T. to call the police. 14 (SAC at ¶ 33.) Prior to this incident, O’Neel’s children had 15 never been removed from the home. (SAC at ¶ 44.) Plaintiffs 16 allege that O’Neel is a nurturing mother and an experienced, 17 award-winning foster parent. (See SAC at ¶ 22, 25.) For a 18 similar wrong to occur again, a report would need to be made 19 about possible abuse of the children, whether based on a lie or 20 based on actual conduct by O’Neel. Plaintiffs have alleged no 21 facts suggesting that either scenario is likely. 22 Plaintiffs allege that defendants City and County have 23 a policy or practice of removing children without adequate 24 investigation. (See SAC at ¶ 78-80.) However, the existence of 25 a policy or practice does not establish that these plaintiffs 26 face a risk of future harm. Even if the alleged practice were to 27 continue, this alone does not indicate that plaintiffs will again 28 experience a similar injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, eee nen enn ee IE NE IEE OS ID EO 1 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). The possibility that plaintiffs will 2 experience similar harm by defendants is therefore too 3 “speculative” to support standing for injunctive relief. See id. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to 5 Dismiss (Docket No. 37) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 6 Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as to 7 defendants Heichlinger, Austin, and Husar; and the prayer for 8 injunctive relief of the Second Amended Complaint is STRICKEN. 9 Dated: October 4, 2022 - ak. 10 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28