Kisliuk v. City of Fort Bragg

Background

Daniel Kisliuk’s second amended complaint described events involving two November 2023 arrests, the towing of his vehicle, the loss or destruction of personal property, his treatment in Mendocino County Jail, his detention after posting bail, and conditions imposed at a preliminary hearing. He asserted claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, claims against individual officials, and municipal-liability claims against the City of Fort Bragg and Mendocino County.

The City Defendants were Bernie Norvell, the City of Fort Bragg, Thomas O’Neal, Tyler Baker, Padraic Ferris, Jonathan McLaughlin, and Neil Cervenka. The County Defendants were Mendocino County and the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office. Eloise Kelsey, Eldon Johnston, Stephen Bohner, and Judge Clayton Brennan also filed motions to dismiss. The court decided the motions without oral argument.

Rulings on the Claims

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court held that Kisliuk plausibly alleged a claim against the City Defendants. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true at this stage, the court concluded that a jury could find the alleged use of a false report about an injured cat—combined with towing Kisliuk’s vehicle and belongings without warning—outrageous enough to support the claim. The court also found that allegations of nightmares, sleep problems, continuing emotional distress, and inability to work sufficiently described severe emotional harm. The claim may proceed.

First Amendment

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim based on the November 1 arrest because Kisliuk had pleaded guilty to resisting or obstructing an officer during that arrest. The court concluded that challenging the arrest’s lawfulness would improperly imply that the conviction was invalid.

The court allowed the First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim based on the November 7 arrest to proceed. It found that the complaint plausibly alleged that the arrest lacked probable cause, including because the November 7 events allegedly were not addressed at the preliminary hearing and because the alleged conduct could have amounted to protected verbal criticism rather than obstruction.

The court rejected the First Amendment claim concerning the County Defendants’ failure to provide a halal diet. It relied on decisions holding that jail or prison officials may require a person to complete a formal application before receiving a special religious diet.

The court dismissed the First Amendment claims against Judge Brennan because judicial immunity generally protects judges from claims for money damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity. The court found that imposing release conditions at a preliminary hearing was a judicial act and that Judge Brennan had subject-matter jurisdiction to impose those conditions.

Fourth Amendment

The court allowed Kisliuk’s claim that the vehicle seizure was carried out unreasonably to proceed. Although Kisliuk did not dispute that the vehicle’s registration had expired or that authorities had probable cause to seize it, the court found that the alleged deceptive method of separating him from the vehicle could plausibly make the seizure unreasonable.

The court rejected the challenge to giving the vehicle keys to the towing company, reasoning that the keys could be taken incident to the lawful arrest and given to the towing company to secure its lien. But the court found that Kisliuk plausibly alleged an unreasonable seizure of unrelated keys and thumb drives on the same keychain because those items were not needed for the towing company’s lien. The court’s later dismissal list refers broadly to the Fourth Amendment claim concerning the giving of the keys to the towing company and says that claim was dismissed without prejudice, creating an apparent tension with the earlier statement that the claim concerning the unrelated items may proceed.

The court rejected the Fourth Amendment challenge to the November 1 arrest because Kisliuk could not challenge the lawfulness of that arrest after his conviction. It allowed the Fourth Amendment challenge to the November 7 arrest to proceed because Kisliuk plausibly alleged that the arrest lacked probable cause.

The court allowed the Fourth Amendment claim based on the destruction of Kisliuk’s miswak to proceed. It reasoned that unnecessary destruction of property can violate the Fourth Amendment when less destructive alternatives are available.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim against Mendocino County concerning the missing silver bracelet because Kisliuk did not adequately allege that the alleged theft resulted from a County policy. The court stated that a claim might have been possible against the deputy who allegedly took the bracelet, but that deputy was not named as a defendant.

The court treated the claim about continued detention after bail was posted as a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim rather than a Fourth Amendment claim. It dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim concerning that detention, while allowing the related Fourteenth Amendment claims to proceed as described below. It also dismissed the Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim against Prosecutor Kelsey because prosecutors have absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions such as reviewing evidence, bringing charges, and presenting those charges to a court.

Fourteenth Amendment

The court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the absence of probable cause for the arrests because the Fourth Amendment, which specifically addresses seizures, governs those allegations.

The court allowed Kisliuk’s Fourteenth Amendment overdetention claim against Mendocino County to proceed. Accepting as true the allegation that no actual bail-revocation order existed, the court found that detention based on a supposed verbal hold could plausibly be arbitrary. The related claim against Bohner may also proceed. The claim against Johnston was dismissed because the complaint alleged only that he supervised the jail and did not adequately allege his personal involvement or a causal connection to the alleged violation.

The court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim based on the cat ruse. It reasoned that the ruse alone did not deprive Kisliuk of a recognized liberty or property interest and that, to the extent the ruse was part of the seizure of his property, the Fourth Amendment—not substantive due process—provided the applicable analysis.

Supervisory Liability

The court dismissed the individual-capacity supervisory-liability claims against Mayor Norvell and Chief Cervenka. It found that Kisliuk did not allege enough specific facts showing that either official had the required knowledge of, or acquiesced in, the earlier alleged violations.

Municipal Liability

The court allowed a municipal-liability claim against the City based on the alleged formal practice of discarding arrestees’ biological possessions, as applied to the destruction of Kisliuk’s miswak. It also allowed the City claim based on an alleged failure to discipline Captain O’Neal after repeated violations.

The court rejected the City claims based on failure to train and failure to supervise because the alleged prior incidents did not establish the required pattern of similar violations or deliberate indifference. The court dismissed the Monell claims against Mendocino County because Kisliuk did not allege specific facts showing a pattern of County violations; the court also stated that the halal-diet incident did not itself violate his rights.

Disposition

Judge Brennan’s motion to dismiss was granted. The remaining motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part.

The court dismissed with prejudice the First and Fourth Amendment claims concerning the November 1 arrest; the Fourth Amendment claim concerning prolonged detention after the November 7 arrest; the First Amendment halal-diet claim; the Fourteenth Amendment claims based on lack of probable cause and the cat ruse; the malicious-prosecution claim against Kelsey; and the First Amendment claims against Judge Brennan.

The court dismissed without prejudice the Fourth Amendment claim concerning giving Kisliuk’s keys to the towing company; the Fourth Amendment claim concerning the bracelet; the Fourteenth Amendment overdetention claim against Johnston; the individual-capacity supervisory-liability claims against Norvell and Cervenka; and the Monell claims against Mendocino County. The order states that the defendants’ motions were otherwise denied.