Hutchins v. City of Vallejo ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 SANTIAGO HUTCHINS, CASE NO. 19-cv-05724-YGR 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CITY OF 6 vs. VALLEJO’S MOTION TO DISMISS CITY OF VALLEJO, ET. AL., 7 Re: Dkt. No. 14 Defendants. 8 9 10 Plaintiff Santiago Hutchins brings this action against defendants City of Vallejo 11 (“Vallejo”), David McLaughlin, City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Department John 12 Doe, Walnut Creek Police Department Office Jane Doe, and Does 3-50. Based upon an alleged 13 interaction between Hutchins and the individual defendants, Hutchins alleges six causes of action: 14 (1) violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including unreasonable search and 15 seizure, and excessive and unreasonable force and force and restraint in the course of arrest or 16 detention, against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50; (2) deprivation of 17 those same constitutional rights in violation of Section 1983, pursuant to Monell, against Vallejo 18 and Does 3-13; (3) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act, against officers 19 McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50; (4) violation of Hutchins’ rights under Article I, 20 Section 13 of the California Constitution against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and 21 Does 3-50; (5) assault and battery against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3- 22 50;and (6) negligence officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50. 23 Now pending before the Court is Vallejo’s motion to dismiss Hutchins’ complaint pursuant 24 to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 14.) Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers 25 submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. 26 The Court is guided by established precedent in the Rule 12(b)(6) context: a complaint 27 must plead “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 1 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 2 for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 3 Having reviewed the complaint, as well as the arguments advanced in the briefing the 4 || Court concludes that Hutchins has sufficiently and adequately pled a Section 1983 claim pursuant 5 to Monell. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 6 || Indeed, Vallejo’s arguments advanced in the motion inappropriately narrow the allegations of the 7 complaint. The Court rejects this narrow characterization and view of the allegations. At this 8 || juncture, the Court finds that Hutchins has pled enough factual content for the Court to draw the 9 || reasonable inference that Vallejo is liable under Monell and its progeny. 10 Accordingly, Vallejo’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Vallejo and defendants shall answer 11 the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this order. Further, a Case Management 12 Conference shall be set for Monday, March 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United 13 States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. 14 This Order terminates Docket Number 14. 3 15 IT Is SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: February 11, 2020 Dypene Mag tiff beens 18 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28