Baidan v. Shull

Background

Orest Baidan sued Jacob Shull, an officer with the Mountain View Police Department, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. Baidan asserted two Fourth Amendment claims: excessive force and unlawful arrest.

According to the complaint, on or about May 26, 2022, Shull entered private property while Baidan was preparing for bed and asked whether Baidan had intentionally spit on his wife, Valentyna Baidan. Baidan denied spitting on her and said that his wife was blackmailing him, asking him to leave the house, and threatening prosecution if he did not comply with her demands. Baidan alleged that Shull said he would arrest him one way or another and then handcuffed him.

Baidan further alleged that he told Shull he was disabled and needed his hands for crutches or a wheelchair. He alleged that Shull forcefully dragged him to a police vehicle and tried to push him inside, triggering heart failure. After Baidan reported breathing difficulty and chest pain, an ambulance took him to El Camino Hospital, where he alleged that Shull used animal restraints to chain him to a wheelchair. Baidan alleged critical heart damage and stated that he was scheduled for open-heart surgery. He sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Motion to Dismiss

Shull moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss only the unlawful-arrest claim for failure to state a claim. He did not challenge the excessive-force claim.

To state an unlawful-arrest claim, Baidan had to allege facts plausibly showing that Shull arrested him without probable cause. Probable cause exists when the circumstances known to the officer would lead an objectively reasonable officer to conclude that there was a fair probability the person had committed or was committing a crime.

The complaint alleged that Shull questioned Baidan about spitting on his wife, Baidan denied doing so, and Shull arrested him anyway. But the complaint did not identify the offense for which Baidan was arrested. Shull argued that the allegations supported probable cause to arrest Baidan for misdemeanor spousal battery under California Penal Code § 243(e), based on a report from Baidan’s wife. Shull also argued that Baidan needed to allege that Shull failed to independently investigate the report before making the arrest.

Baidan did not dispute that spitting on his wife could support a spousal-battery charge, and he appeared not to dispute that his wife told Shull he had spit on her. Instead, he appeared to suggest that her statements were not credible.

Court’s Ruling

Judge DeMarchi held that the complaint did not plead enough facts to support a plausible unlawful-arrest claim. In light of Baidan’s apparent concession that his wife reported the alleged battery and that Shull questioned him about the report before taking him into custody, the court could not plausibly infer from the existing allegations that Shull lacked probable cause.

The court rejected Shull’s argument that the only reasonable inference was that Shull responded to the wife’s report and that relying on it was objectively reasonable. The court therefore found that claim 2, as currently pleaded, did not state a plausible unlawful-arrest claim, but concluded that it was not clear the claim could not be adequately pleaded with additional facts.

The court granted Shull’s partial motion to dismiss claim 2, with leave to amend. Baidan was permitted to file a first amended complaint by November 1, 2024. The court stated that he could not amend the excessive-force claim or add other claims without first obtaining the court’s permission. The court also vacated the October 15, 2024 hearing and continued the initial case-management conference to December 10, 2024.