Mills v. City of Palo Alto

Background

Eric David Mills, described as an inmate in county jail, sued Santa Clara County, the City of Palo Alto, and several Palo Alto police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that evidence was planted or fabricated during and after his January 30, 2021 arrest, including allegations involving a gun, DNA, methamphetamine, ammunition, and cellphones. His second amended complaint asserted claims for false arrest and imprisonment, fabrication of evidence, unlawful search, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, speedy-trial violations, and state-law causes of action.

Mills was held in Santa Clara County Jail until June 2023, when the charges arising from the January 30, 2021 incident were dismissed. He was later convicted in Stanislaus County for murder and gun possession based on crimes committed on January 1, 2021. The court concluded that the fabrication claim concerning the January 30 incident would not necessarily invalidate those later convictions, so the claims were not barred by the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey.

Amendment and Screening

The court granted Mills leave to file the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court stated that the second amended complaint superseded the first amended complaint, making the motions directed to the first amended complaint moot, but it considered the arguments and judicially noticeable materials in evaluating similar claims in the new complaint. The court stated that no further amendment would be allowed.

Because Mills was incarcerated and sued governmental entities and officials, the court screened the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It dismissed the false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims because the allegations and judicially noticeable materials showed probable cause for the arrest and did not plausibly show that the arrest lacked legal justification. It dismissed the unlawful-search claim because the allegations did not plausibly show that the search of Mills’s car lacked probable cause; the court also stated that Mills lacked standing to challenge searches of Navarro’s home and safe.

The court dismissed the fabrication claim based on a photograph of methamphetamine and money because Mills did not plausibly allege that the photograph caused his arrest, charges, detention, or another loss of liberty. It allowed the fabrication claim against Officer Cuevas to proceed based on the allegation that Cuevas planted a gun and caused Mills’s DNA to appear on it, because that evidence allegedly was used to arrest and prosecute Mills for possessing a gun on January 30, 2021. The court rejected the fabrication claim concerning cellphones allegedly planted by Officer Webber because Mills did not allege how that evidence was relied upon to prosecute, convict, or deprive him of liberty.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim because conspiracy is not itself an independent constitutional claim under § 1983 and Mills’s allegations of an agreement or meeting of the minds were conclusory. It dismissed the malicious-prosecution claims against Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County District Attorney, and prosecutors Tamara Cool and McKeown based on sovereign and prosecutorial immunity. It also dismissed the speedy-trial claims because the court was aware of no damages cause of action for the asserted speedy-trial violations and the prosecutors had immunity.

The court dismissed Mills’s state-law claims because the complaint did not show that he had timely presented the required tort claims to Santa Clara County and Palo Alto under the California Government Claims Act. The court stated that pursuing permission to submit a late claim did not establish compliance with the statutory requirement.

Orders and Case Management

The court’s conclusion states that Mills’s claim against Cuevas for fabrication of evidence is legally sufficient to proceed and that all other claims are dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice. The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It ordered defendants to produce, within 28 days, complaints or reports concerning alleged fabrication, tampering, or planting of evidence involving Officer Cuevas, as well as the names and addresses of witnesses to such conduct by the officers during the preceding five years. The records may be used only in this case and must be returned when the litigation ends. The parties could submit a further stipulated protective order within 21 days.

The court ordered Officer Cuevas to file a summary-judgment motion by October 1, 2024, with Mills’s opposition due October 29, 2024, and a reply due November 12, 2024. The court denied Mills’s photocopy request because he did not properly complete the form and indicated that he would not pay for the copies. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order on July 2, 2024.