Cooper v. City of Fairfield ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PATRICIA V. COOPER, No. 2:21-cv-01538-JAM-KJN individually as Guardian Ad 11 Litem for minors Z.R.; Z.R., JR.; and D.R., successors-in- 12 interest to ZACHARY T. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ROBINSON, MOTION TO DISMISS 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 CITY OF FAIRFIELD; FAIRFIELD 16 POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ITS OFFICERS; OFFICER KENNAN 17 SIEVERS; OFFICER MATTHEW THOMAS; and Does 1-100, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Patricia V. Cooper (“Plaintiff”) sued in her 21 individual capacity, as a successor-in-interest to Zachary T. 22 Robinson (“Decedent”), and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors Z.R., 23 Z.R., Junior and D.R., to recover punitive and compensatory 24 damages from Officers Kennan Sievers and Matthew Thomas 25 (“Defendants”) for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Second 26 Amended Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 33. Defendants move to dismiss 27 the SAC. See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 37. Plaintiff 28 opposes the motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 40. Defendants replied. 1 See Reply, ECF No. 41. 2 For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS 3 Defendants’ motion.1 4 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff alleges that on January 31, 2022, Decedent was 6 being pursued on his motorcycle by Officer Sievers and unnamed 7 officers. SAC ¶ 18. Officer Sievers and the unnamed officers 8 conducted a PIT maneuver on Decedent’s motorcycle, causing 9 Decedent to lose control of the vehicle and collide with a pole, 10 resulting in his death. Id. At the time of the alleged PIT 11 maneuver, Officer Sievers was travelling at approximately 105 12 miles per hour. Id. Officer Thomas reviewed and ratified 13 Sievers’ report. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent had not 14 committed a crime, posed no threat of violence to officers, nor 15 committed any actions that justified the use of deadly force 16 against him. Id. ¶¶ 19-22. Further, Plaintiff claims that 17 Defendants acted in concert with one another to engage in a 18 repeated pattern and practice of using excessive, arbitrary, 19 and/or unreasonable force against individuals, including 20 Decedent. Id. ¶ 25. 21 On August 26, 2021, this action was removed from state 22 court; one week later, Defendants moved to dismiss the initial 23 complaint. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1; Mot. to Dismiss, 24 ECF No. 3. On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first amended 25 complaint (“FAC”), bringing causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for January 24, 2023. 1 § 1983 for (1) detention and arrest, (2) excessive force, 2 (3) substantive due process, (4) ratification, (5) inadequate 3 training, (6) unconstitutional custom, practice, or policy, and 4 (7) civil conspiracy. See FAC, ECF No. 21. Defendants moved to 5 dismiss the FAC under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim 6 upon which relief could be granted. See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 7 No. 24. This Court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed 8 Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and seventh causes of action 9 against Defendants City of Fairfield and Fairfield Police 10 Department with prejudice. See Order, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff 11 then filed the operative SAC against Officers Sievers and Thomas, 12 bringing causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) wrongful 13 death, (2) deprivation of the constitutional right to familial 14 relationship, (3) unconstitutional custom, practice, or policy, 15 (4) civil conspiracy, and (5) substantive due process. Defendants 16 seek to have the SAC dismissed in its entirety. 17 II. OPINION 18 A. Legal Standard 19 In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted under FRCP 12(b)(6), the 21 Court must accept the allegations in the SAC as true and draw all 22 reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff. Moss v. U.S. Secret 23 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The SAC must possess more than 25 “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it 26 must contain non-conclusory, factual allegations sufficient “to 27 raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 28 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). 1 B. Analysis 2 1. Claim One: Wrongful Death 3 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s first claim alleging 4 Decedent’s wrongful death under the Fourth and Fourteenth 5 Amendments should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s pleading is 6 (1) duplicative and (2) insufficient to show that Defendants’ 7 alleged use of the PIT maneuver on Decedent’s motorcycle “shocks 8 the conscience” of the Court, particularly due to the context in 9 which the maneuver was allegedly used. Mot. at 5-6. Defendants 10 also contend that Plaintiff offers no evidence that Defendant 11 Thomas was involved in the alleged conduct at issue, so the claim 12 against him should be dismissed. Id. at 5. Plaintiff responds 13 that Defendant Thomas is liable because the alleged facts are 14 sufficient to state a cause of action against the City of 15 Fairfield, which can be imputed to Defendant Thomas. Opp’n at 8. 16 Plaintiff then claims that Defendants’ motion cannot definitely 17 state that neither Defendant was at the scene of Decedent’s 18 collision and that, to the contrary, the Defendants acted jointly 19 with unnamed officers to harm Decedent. Id. 20 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts 21 sufficient to maintain this claim against Defendants. The SAC 22 must contain non-conclusory, factual allegations sufficient “to 23 raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 24 550 U.S. at 554. A defendant is entitled to know what actions a 25 plaintiff alleges it engaged in that supports the plaintiff’s 26 claims; failure to “delineate conduct by a specific defendant 27 prevents the court from drawing the reasonable inference that the 28 specific defendant is liable for the claim alleged and justifies 1 dismissal of the claim.” J.M. v. Pleasant Ridge Union Sch. 2 Dist., No. CV21600897WBSCKD, 2017 WL 117965, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 3 Jan. 10, 2017). Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants Sievers 4 and Thomas were involved in the alleged constitutional violation 5 fails to rise beyond speculation. Plaintiff offers no 6 allegations that Defendant Thomas was involved in the conduct at 7 issue at all. SAC ¶ 18. As for Defendant Sievers, the SAC 8 simply states that Sievers and an unknown number of unnamed 9 officers conducted a PIT maneuver on Decedent’s motorcycle. Id. 10 As the PIT maneuver is a law enforcement pursuit tactic conducted 11 by a single law enforcement vehicle on a fleeing suspect’s 12 vehicle, this allegation alone is insufficient to allow the Court 13 to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant Sievers 14 specifically conducted the PIT maneuver alleged by Plaintiff. 15 Plaintiff’s claim that general allegations against a police 16 department can be imputed against individual officers is 17 unsupported by any legal authority and is unpersuasive. 18 Plaintiff has had three opportunities to properly plead this 19 claim and in the absence of sufficient factual allegations 20 capable of curing the defects in the SAC, the Court dismisses 21 this claim against Defendants with prejudice. Reddy v. Litton 22 Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir.1990)). 23 2. Claim Two: Right to Familial Relations 24 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim is inadequately pled 25 as it consists of the single allegation that Defendants deprived 26 Decedent’s children of their right to a familial relationship 27 with Decedent. Mot. at 6. Defendants again contend that the use 28 of the PIT maneuver in itself is insufficient to constitute 1 conduct that would shock the conscience of the Court. Id. 2 Plaintiff claims that the PIT maneuver is a dangerous technique 3 and that its use constitutes conduct that would shock the 4 conscience of the Court. Opp’n at 9. Plaintiff then cites 5 authority from other circuits discussing the liability of law 6 enforcement officers responding to non-emergencies. Id. at 9-10. 7 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts 8 sufficient to maintain this claim against Defendants. The SAC 9 must contain non-conclusory, factual allegations sufficient “to 10 raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 11 550 U.S. at 554. A defendant is entitled to know what actions a 12 plaintiff alleges it engaged in that supports the plaintiff’s 13 claims; failure to “delineate conduct by a specific defendant 14 prevents the court from drawing the reasonable inference that the 15 specific defendant is liable for the claim alleged and justifies 16 dismissal of the claim.” Pleasant Ridge, No. CV21600897WBSCKD at 17 *2. The SAC simply realleges the facts in Plaintiff’s first 18 claim and adds that Defendants’ actions deprived Decedent’s 19 children of their right to a familial relationship through 20 deliberate indifference, which is insufficient to raise 21 Plaintiff’s right to relief above the speculative level. 22 Plaintiff has again failed to: (1) allege that Defendant Thomas 23 was involved in the alleged PIT maneuver at all or even present 24 at the scene of the incident; and (2) allege sufficient facts for 25 this Court to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant Sievers 26 specifically conducted the alleged PIT maneuver used on Decedent. 27 Plaintiff’s reference to case law in other circuits regarding 28 1 officer liability is immaterial and unpersuasive.2 In the 2 absence of sufficient factual allegations capable of curing the 3 defects in the SAC, the Court finds that further amendment would 4 be futile and dismisses this claim against Defendants with 5 prejudice. Reddy, 912 F.2d at 296. 6 3. Claim Three: Municipal Liability 7 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Monell claim must fail 8 because it is both inadequately plead and alleged against 9 individual officers instead of a local government unit. Mot. at 10 7-8. Plaintiff responds by discussing the different theories of 11 liability under Monell and claiming that the City of Fairfield 12 can be held liable for Plaintiff’s injuries. Opp’n at 11-13. 13 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Monell claim fails because 14 Defendants are individuals and Monell liability only applies to 15 local government entities. Reason v. City of Richmond, No. 20- 16 CV-01900-WBS-EFB, 2021 WL 107225, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 17 2021); see also Guillory v. Orange Cty., 731 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th 18 Cir. 1984) (“Monell does not concern liability of individuals 19 acting under color of state law.”). There is no legal authority 20 that supports vicarious liability claims directly against these 21 individual defendants under Monell. The Court finds that 22 Defendants are improper defendants for this claim and dismisses 23 this claim with prejudice because further amendment is futile. 24 4 Claim Four: Civil Conspiracy 25 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim 26 2 The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s reference to newspaper articles to 27 support her brief is immaterial as such materials are not properly considered on a motion to dismiss. See In re Boeing Sec. Litig., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 28 1171 n.9 (W.D. Wash. 1998) 1 must fail because it is inadequately plead. Mot. at 8. 2 Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 3 there was any communication or agreement between Defendants. Id. 4 at 9. Plaintiff responds that Defendants and unnamed officers 5 acted in concert to perform the PIT maneuver on Decedent’s 6 motorcycle, which is sufficient to establish the requisite 7 “meeting of the minds” for Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim. Opp’n 8 at 13-14. The Court disagrees. 9 The SAC must contain non-conclusory, factual allegations 10 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative 11 level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554. In order to allege a 12 conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff must show “an agreement or 13 meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights.” Franklin 14 v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002). To be liable, each 15 participant in the conspiracy need not know the exact details of 16 the plan, but each participant must at least share the common 17 objective of the conspiracy.” Id. at 441. This agreement or 18 meeting of the minds may be inferred based on circumstantial 19 evidence, such as the actions of the defendants. Mendocino 20 Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1301 (9th Cir. 21 1999). The only fact alleged by Plaintiff to support this claim 22 is the conclusory statement that Defendants and unnamed officers 23 acted in concert to perform the PIT maneuver. Opp’n at 12-13. 24 This allegation alone is insufficient to sustain Plaintiff’s 25 claim. Plaintiff offers no evidence that either Defendants: 26 (1) were specifically involved in the use of the alleged PIT 27 maneuver, a technique that requires one police vehicle; (2) had 28 any communications about the use of the PIT maneuver before, 1 during, or after the incident with Decedent; or (3) shared an 2 objective with unnamed officers to violate Decedent’s 3 constitutional rights. In the absence of sufficient factual 4 allegations capable of curing the defects in the SAC, and finding 5 that further amendment is futile, the Court dismisses this claim 6 against Defendants with prejudice. Reddy, 912 F.2d at 296. 7 5. Claim Five: Substantive Due Process 8 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s due process claim should 9 be dismissed because Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and 10 insufficient to sustain Plaintiff’s claim. Mot. at 6-7. As for 11 the alleged use of the PIT maneuver, Defendants argue that if it 12 was employed by officers, it was for a legitimate law enforcement 13 objective, namely stopping Decedent from travelling at 105 miles 14 per hour on the road. Id. at 7. Plaintiff responds that (1) the 15 use of the PIT maneuver “shocks the conscience” and (2) Plaintiff 16 and Decedent’s children had their familial relationship with 17 Decedent violated by Defendants’ unconstitutional actions, both 18 of which are sufficient to sustain Plaintiff’s substantive due 19 process claim. Opp’n at 10-11. Plaintiff then notes the facts 20 of Zion v. County of Orange, 874 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2017), 21 stating that the circumstances of that case are similar to this 22 case as grounds for denying Defendants’ motion. Id. at 11. The 23 Court disagrees. 24 A defendant is entitled to know what actions a plaintiff 25 alleges it engaged in that supports the plaintiff’s claims; 26 failure to “delineate conduct by a specific defendant prevents 27 the court from drawing the reasonable inference that the specific 28 defendant is liable for the claim alleged and justifies dismissal 1 of the claim.” Pleasant Ridge, No. CV21600897WBSCKD at *2. As 2 noted above, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants Sievers and 3 Thomas were involved in the alleged constitutional violation 4 fails to rise beyond speculation. Plaintiff offers no facts that 5 Defendant Thomas was involved in the conduct at issue at all. 6 SAC ¶ 18. As for Defendant Sievers, the SAC simply states that 7 Sievers and an unknown number of unnamed officers conducted a PIT 8 maneuver on Decedent’s motorcycle. Id. As the PIT maneuver is a 9 law enforcement pursuit tactic conducted by a single law 10 enforcement vehicle on a fleeing suspect’s vehicle, this 11 allegation alone is insufficient to allow the Court to draw a 12 reasonable inference that Defendant Sievers specifically 13 conducted the PIT maneuver alleged by Plaintiff. In the absence 14 of sufficient factual allegations capable of curing the defects 15 in the SAC, and finding that further amendment is futile, the 16 Court dismisses this claim against Defendants with prejudice. 17 Reddy, 912 F.2d at 296. 18 III. SANCTIONS 19 This Court issued its Order re Filing Requirements (“Filing 20 Order”) on July 22, 2022. ECF No. 30-2. The Filing Order limits 21 reply memoranda to five pages. Filing Order at 1. The Filing 22 Order also states that an attorney who exceeds the page limit 23 must pay monetary sanctions of $50 per page. Id. Defendants 24 exceeded the Court’s 5-page limit on reply memoranda by four 25 pages. See Reply. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendants’ 26 counsel to pay $200.00 to the Clerk for the Eastern District of 27 California no later than seven days from the date of this Order. 28 /// ee em REI OO ON aI IRI IERIE IIE EE IN EIEIO IRIE IEE OSE IIE eee 1 Iv. ORDER 2 For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS 3 Defendants’ motion. Because Plaintiff has had multiple 4 opportunities to properly plead her claims but has failed, the 5 Court finds further amendment would be futile. The Second Amended 6 | Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Deveraturda v. Globe 7 Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) 8 (explaining a district court need not grant leave to amend where 9 | amendment would be futile). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 30, 2023 12 opens JOHN A. MENDEZ 14 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11