Banks v. Mortimer

Background

The pro se plaintiffs sued the City of Antioch, Contra Costa County, and individual employees of the City and County after Nathan Banks died during an encounter with Antioch police. According to the complaint, Officer Michael Mortimer struck Nathan in the head with a flashlight and pointed a gun at him. After Nathan left the vehicle and tried to flee, Mortimer chased and shot him at least three times. Mortimer and K9 Officer Ryan White then allegedly deployed a police dog to bite Nathan.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the investigation into Nathan’s death was deficient, including alleged witness intimidation, evidence tampering, omitted injuries in a pathology report, and conflicting government reports. The City publicly reported the death as a “justifiable homicide,” and no criminal charges were filed.

The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure, excessive force, municipal liability, and interference with access to the courts; a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1; battery; and supervisory liability under § 1983. The County Defendants, City Defendants, and Defendant Guichard each moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognized claim supported by enough factual allegations. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpreted the pro se complaint liberally, but it did not supply essential facts that the plaintiffs had not alleged. When a claim could potentially be corrected by additional facts, the court generally was required to allow an amendment.

Survival claims and authority to sue

The court first addressed whether the plaintiffs were authorized to bring claims seeking damages for injuries Nathan personally suffered. Under California law, a survival claim may be brought by the decedent’s personal representative or, if there is none, the decedent’s successor in interest. The plaintiffs did not allege that they were personal representatives or successors in interest. The court also explained that an estate itself is not a legal entity that can sue.

The court therefore dismissed the survival causes of action: unlawful seizure, excessive force, the California Civil Code § 52.1 claim, supervisory liability, municipal liability insofar as it was based on excessive force, and battery. The court’s conclusion granted the motions to dismiss these claims with leave to amend. The court stated that an amended complaint addressing this issue would need specific information and a certified copy of Nathan’s death certificate as required by California law.

Minor plaintiff

The defendants asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for Alexis Avalos because she might be a minor. The court denied that request at that time because the record contained no evidence that Avalos was a minor. The court ordered that any amended complaint state each plaintiff’s age and domicile and provide information about a general guardian for any minor plaintiff. The court also noted that filings should use a minor plaintiff’s initials rather than the minor’s full name.

Official-capacity claims

The plaintiffs sued individual defendants in both their personal and official capacities. The court held that an official-capacity claim against a municipal employee is equivalent to a claim against the municipality itself. Because the City and County were already defendants, the official-capacity claims against the individual defendants were redundant. The court dismissed those official-capacity claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Municipal-liability claim

The plaintiffs alleged that the City and County had unconstitutional practices or customs involving unreasonable force and inadequate or falsified investigations. To state a municipal-liability claim under Monell, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that an official policy, a widespread practice or custom, inadequate training or supervision, or a final policymaker’s decision was the moving force behind the alleged injury.

The court held that the complaint did not provide specific facts showing other incidents, a sufficiently widespread practice or custom, or that the City, County, or authorized policymakers knew or should have known about unconstitutional conduct. The court granted the motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim with leave to amend.

Access-to-the-courts claim

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants publicly spread misinformation and concealed facts about Nathan’s death, interfering with their ability to pursue a claim. The court held that the plaintiffs had not identified the claim they allegedly lost or impaired. Because this case was still pending, they had not shown that defendants had prevented them from suing or seeking relief in this court, and they had not alleged facts showing that defendants prevented them from suing elsewhere.

The court rejected the request to dismiss this claim with prejudice. It held that the claim was premature and dismissed it without prejudice. The court also dismissed without prejudice the personal-capacity claims against Colley, Livingston, Grove, Alexander, and Guichard because the allegations against those defendants appeared related to the access-to-the-courts claim. The court agreed that the claim could not be based on the absence of criminal charges, but it did not rule out a possible claim involving obstruction of civil proceedings through a deficient or falsified investigation.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend as to the survival claims, the municipal-liability claim, the access-to-the-courts claim, and the personal-capacity claims against Colley, Livingston, Grove, Alexander, and Guichard. It granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice as to the Estate as an improper plaintiff and the official-capacity claims against the individual defendants. The court otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. Any amended complaint was due within 28 days of the order. The court also set a case-management conference for October 8, 2019.