Casey v. City of Santa Rosa

Background

Robert Casey alleged that on June 1, 2018, he was searching for his runaway dog on a trail with help from a stranger when Santa Rosa Police Department officers and Sonoma County Probation Officer Greg Schmidt responded. Casey alleged that Schmidt held him at gunpoint even though the officers lacked a reasonable belief that Casey was committing, had committed, or intended to commit a crime. Casey further alleged that, after he complied with orders to get on the ground and raise his hands, Schmidt placed him in a chokehold until he became unconscious. Casey alleged that he was later charged with resisting arrest.

In his third amended complaint, Casey asserted a state-law false-imprisonment claim, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution against Schmidt, and a § 1983 municipal-liability claim against Sonoma County. A municipal-liability claim under Monell alleges that a local government’s policy, custom, or failure to train caused a constitutional violation. The County and Schmidt moved to dismiss the third, fourth, and eighth causes of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

False-Imprisonment Claim

The court dismissed without prejudice the eighth cause of action for false imprisonment against the County Defendants. In an earlier order, the court had found that Casey did not comply with the California Tort Claims Act before filing suit and needed relief from the related claim-filing requirement before his state-law claims against the County Defendants could proceed. Casey conceded that naming the County Defendants in this claim was inadvertent and that the claim was subject to dismissal.

Municipal-Liability Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss the third cause of action, Casey’s Monell claim against Sonoma County. The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because it employs the person who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Instead, the complaint must plausibly allege a constitutional violation, a municipal policy or custom, deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, and that the policy or custom caused the violation.

The County argued that Casey relied on unrelated and unsupported prior lawsuits to allege a pattern or practice. The court nevertheless found sufficient the allegation that Schmidt’s sworn statement described the chokehold as a technique consistent with his training and appropriate in the circumstances. Casey also alleged that County law enforcement used the technique as part of their training, even though other law-enforcement agencies had banned it because of its dangers. Because the allegations indicated that the technique was not limited to Schmidt, the court held that Casey stated a plausible failure-to-train claim and could pursue discovery to support it.

Malicious-Prosecution Claim

The court dismissed without prejudice the fourth cause of action for malicious prosecution as to all defendants. Casey alleged that officers intentionally submitted false information to prosecute him on resisting charges. A malicious-prosecution claim requires allegations that the defendants acted with malice, without probable cause, to deny the plaintiff equal protection or another specific constitutional right, and that the earlier criminal proceeding ended in the plaintiff’s favor.

Casey conceded that his criminal case remained pending and requested dismissal without prejudice if the charges were still pending. At the hearing, Casey confirmed that the preliminary hearing had been continued to October 1, 2019. Because the criminal proceeding had not ended in his favor, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice. The court stated that Casey could seek leave to amend if the criminal proceeding later terminated in his favor.

Disposition

Judge Kane A. WESTMORE granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court denied dismissal of the Monell claim, dismissed without prejudice the malicious-prosecution claim as to all defendants, and dismissed without prejudice the false-imprisonment claim against the County Defendants. The County Defendants were ordered to file an answer within 21 days of the order.