Wagner v. Shasta County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CINDY WAGNER, No. 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 SHASTA COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for 18 summary judgment (“MSJ”). See Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF 19 No. 90. Plaintiff opposes the motion.1 See Opp’n, ECF No. 97. 20 Defendant replied. See Reply, ECF No. 99.2 21 /// 22 /// 23 1 As Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s opposition pleading was 24 untimely under the Court’s local rules. Reply at 3. While “failure to file a timely opposition may [be] construed by the 25 Court as a non-opposition” under Local Rule 230(c), the Court in its discretion will consider the opposition in the interests of 26 judicial economy. 27 2 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 1, 2022. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 This case arises out of Plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent 3 booking at Shasta County Jail following a domestic dispute. See 4 Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“DSUF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 90-1. 5 Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to excessive force during the 6 course of her detention in violation of her constitutional 7 rights. Id. ¶¶ 11-15. Plaintiff was injured in the process of 8 being handcuffed. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. She was treated by the jail 9 medical staff and, later, transported to Mercy Medical Center for 10 further treatment. Id. ¶¶ 16, 20. Plaintiff was released the 11 next day after she posted bail. Id. ¶ 22. 12 Plaintiff brought nine claims against Defendant. See 13 Compl., Exh. A to Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. There are seven 14 claims remaining. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 15 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 25 16 (dismissing Plaintiff’s Monell claim); see also Stipulation and 17 Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Cota on October 27, 2021, ECF 18 No. 52 (dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction 19 of emotional harm). The Court takes up the remaining claims 20 below. 21 22 II. OPINION 23 A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment 24 Summary judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there 25 is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 26 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 27 Summary judgment should be granted cautiously, with due respect 28 for a party’s right to have its factually grounded claims and 1 defenses tried to a jury. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 2 317, 327, (1986). The Court must view the facts and draw 3 inferences in the manner most favorable to the non-moving party. 4 United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, (1992); Chevron 5 Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1992). The 6 moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the 7 absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial, but it 8 need not disprove the other party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 9 323. 10 B. Claims One-Four under § 1983 11 The Court finds as a matter of law that Plaintiff’s § 1983 12 claims for excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, 13 retaliation, and inadequate medical care cannot proceed against 14 Defendant Shasta County, because a municipality cannot be held 15 liable under § 1983 for the actions of its employees. As 16 Defendant argued, “[i]n order for a municipality to be subject 17 to damages liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege and 18 ultimately show an official municipal policy caused his or her 19 constitutional deprivation.” MSJ at 11. Plaintiff must, in 20 other words, allege and prove a Monell claim. See Monell v. 21 Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 22 The Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s Monell claim in 23 its order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s 24 motion for judgment on the pleadings. See ECF No. 25. The 25 Court also denied Plaintiff’s recent request to reinstate her 26 Monell claim, finding Plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment 27 nearly two years after the claims were first dismissed to be 28 without “good cause” under Rule 16. See Order Denying 1 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 103. There is, 2 accordingly, no Monell claim at issue for summary judgment. 3 Separate and apart from Plaintiff’s contentions that her 4 Monell claims should be reinstated, Plaintiff argues that there 5 remain “triable issues” of fact precluding summary judgment on 6 her § 1983 claims. Opp’n at 10. These “triable issues,” 7 however, all concern the actions of a certain Deputy Van Gerwen, 8 who is not party to this suit. The Court has twice denied 9 Plaintiff’s request to add Van Gerwen as a named defendant 10 because of Plaintiff’s unjustified and prejudicial delay in 11 seeking amendment. See Order Denying Leave to Amend, ECF 12 No. 35; see also Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration. 13 Given that the only named defendant, Defendant Shasta 14 County, cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for 15 Deputy Van Gerwen’s alleged actions, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims 16 cannot proceed as a matter of law. The Court grants summary 17 judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s first through fourth 18 claims under § 1983. 19 C. Supplemental Jurisdiction 20 Having found summary judgment appropriate for Defendant on 21 Plaintiff’s only federal claims, the Court considers the 22 propriety of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the 23 remaining state law claims. A district court may decline 24 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court 25 “has dismissed all claims over which it has original 26 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In light of the 27 discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction and the 28 parties’ joint request for Plaintiff’s state law claims to be eee en een een ne nnn on nn on nn ne I IS IE OE 1 remanded, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over 2 Plaintiff’s Bane Act, negligence, and battery claims. Opp’n at 3 17; Reply at 9; see Lima v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 947 F.3d 1122, 4 1128 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding no abuse of discretion in 5 | declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when summary 6 | Judgment is granted on all federal claims). 7 8 Til. ORDER 9 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 10 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims 1-4. The Court 11 DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining 12 state law claims. Defendant is ORDERED to provide the Court with 13 a proposed judgment by November 15, 2022. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 1, 2022 16 ep JOHN A. MENDEZ 18 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28