Alvarez Martinez v. City of Richmond ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 IVAN FABIAN ALVAREZ MARTINEZ, 10 Case No. 22-cv-05407-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. AMENDED ORDER DENYING 12 MOTION TO DISMISS CITY OF RICHMOND, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff Ivan Fabian Alvarez Martinez called 911 to report he was being aggressively 18 chased by a stranger, while driving with his three-year-old daughter. Martinez pulled into a gas 19 station. The stranger followed, and jumped onto Martinez’ car. The stranger then fell onto the 20 ground, just as the police were arriving. The police spoke to the stranger in English. When 21 Martinez attempted to tell the police his story and asked for a translator, the police told him to 22 “shut the fuck up.” Martinez was arrested, handcuffed, and transported to the police station. 23 Martinez alleges he was “roughed up” and that the officers struck his head against a car even 24 though he was not a threat to the officers and did not attempt to strike them. 25 When the police eventually reviewed the video security footage from the gas station, they 26 realized Martinez was the victim, not the aggressor, and they released him without charges. In this 27 action, Martinez advances claims under federal and state law against Officer Miguel Castillo and 1 contends the officers used. 2 Defendants move to dismiss, arguing the “bare, boilerplate” allegations of the amended 3 complaint are insufficient to support a claim. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is 4 suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for December 8, 2022, is 5 vacated. Because the determinations defendants seek—that the detention was not unreasonably 6 prolonged and the force used was not excessive—are not matters that can be decided at the 7 pleading stage, the motion will be denied. 8 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While “detailed factual allegations” are not 12 required, a complaint must have sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is “plausible on 13 its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 14 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 15 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 16 alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This standard asks for “more than a sheer 17 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The determination is a context-specific task 18 requiring the court “to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. 19 A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See Conservation 21 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be 22 based on either the “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or on “the absence of sufficient facts 23 alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Id. at 1242 (internal quotation marks and citation 24 omitted). When evaluating such a motion, the court must accept all material allegations in the 25 complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In re 26 Quality Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 865 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2017). 27 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants characterize the events alleged in the complaint as nothing more than “an 3 honest mistake.” Defendants contend the officers encountered a “chaotic and still-developing 4 situation” in which they “initially mistook Plaintiff Martinez for an aggressor and detained him 5 accordingly.” Defendants claim Martinez was released in less than one hour. Defendants insist 6 Martinez cannot assert claims related to the detention because the facts alleged in the complaint 7 show the officers had “reasonable suspicion to engage with and temporarily detain Plaintiff.” 8 The officers almost certainly had a lawful basis to detain Martinez temporarily—the 9 complaint does not allege otherwise. Rather, the claim is that defendants violated Martinez’s rights 10 by subjecting him to an “unreasonably invasive, or prolonged investigatory detention.” The 11 complaint does not allege the specific length of the detention, and the parties’ briefing reflect a 12 factual dispute on that detail. The complaint alleges, however, that Martinez was transported to the 13 police station, which takes it beyond the “brief investigatory stop” defendants seek to portray it as. 14 Under all the circumstances alleged in the complaint, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the 15 conduct was lawful, even though the initial detention very well may have been appropriate. 16 Defendants also insist Martinez cannot pursue claims based on allegedly excessive force 17 because officers generally are entitled to use force if necessary, even in connection with 18 investigatory stops, and the amount of force used in this instance “was reasonable under the 19 circumstances and, therefore, lawful.” The complaint alleges the officers “roughed up” Martinez 20 struck his head against a vehicle, and physically injured his wrists during the application of 21 handcuffs. Whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances is a factual question 22 that cannot be resolved in defendants’ favor on the pleadings. 23 Finally, defendants argue the complaint does not adequately distinguish between the 24 conduct of defendant Officer Castillo and that of his partner, identified only as “DOE.”1 The clear 25 26 1 The partner is not a party to this action, as the complaint contains no charging allegations against 27 him as a Doe defendant. 1 gist of the allegations, however, is that the two officers jointly carried out the alleged conduct. 2 || Further specificity is not required at this juncture. 3 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 The motion to dismiss is denied. Defendants shall file an answer within 20 days of the date 6 of this order. 7 8 || ITISSO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: December 5, 2022 11 ICHARD SEEBORG 3 12 Chief United States District Judge 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CaSE No. 22-cv-05407-RS