Allen v. St Helena Police Department

Background

Karl Douglas Allen, formerly held at Napa County Jail and Napa State Hospital, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend.

Allen alleged that, during his July 31, 2016 arrest, St. Helena police officer Ramon Jovel used a taser on him twice and pepper-sprayed him. He alleged that Jovel, Woodland police officer John Perez, Jonathan Bodner, and William Monroy tackled and strangled him while he was not resisting. Allen also alleged that there was no probable cause for his arrest.

Allen further alleged that false statements appeared in police reports, but he said he did not know who made them. He alleged policies or cultures of corruption and abuse by the City of St. Helena and Napa County. He also alleged that he was held in solitary confinement at the jail, was improperly medicated at Napa State Hospital, and that Drs. Hamilton, Metzger, and Maqsood falsified documents. Finally, he suspected that unidentified federal agents or agencies were behind his arrest and the allegedly false reports.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court held that the allegations stated cognizable § 1983 claims against Jovel, Perez, Bodner, and Monroy for excessive force. Excessive-force claims arising from an arrest are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. The court found that the allegations that Allen was tased, tackled, strangled, and pepper-sprayed while offering no resistance were sufficient at the screening stage.

The court also held that Allen stated § 1983 claims against the same four defendants for false arrest. An arrest must be supported by probable cause, and Allen alleged that he was calm, followed Jovel’s commands, was not committing a crime, and was arrested without probable cause.

Although Bodner and Monroy apparently were private citizens, and Perez was allegedly off duty and not in uniform, the court found that the allegations that they jointly participated with police in arresting and subduing Allen were sufficient, at this stage, to treat them as state actors under the joint-action test.

Claims and Defendants Dismissed

The court dismissed Allen’s due-process claim based on allegedly false police reports. Allen did not identify who made the statements and acknowledged that he was uncertain whether they were made by the arresting officer, other officers, witnesses, or victims. The court concluded that this speculation did not plausibly connect any particular defendant to the alleged violation. The court did not grant further permission to amend this claim, although it stated that Allen could later seek permission to file a second amended complaint if he learned who made the statements.

The court dismissed Allen’s municipal-liability claim against the City of St. Helena. A municipal-liability claim under § 1983 requires facts plausibly showing that a specific city policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. The court found Allen’s allegations of a general policy or culture of corruption and abuse too conclusory. It also found that Allen had not alleged that a city employee made the false statements or that a city policy caused a constitutional violation. The court did not grant further permission to amend this claim.

The court dismissed the claim against unidentified federal agents or agencies without leave to amend. Allen’s allegations were based on suspicion rather than facts identifying a particular federal person or entity. Because the complaint did not state a plausible claim, the court did not decide whether a damages claim based on the constitutional theory Allen proposed would be available.

Improperly Joined Defendants

The court found that the claims concerning Napa County Jail and Napa State Hospital were improperly joined with the arrest and excessive-force claims. The arrest defendants were not alleged to be responsible for the jail or hospital conditions, and the two groups of claims did not arise from the same events or share a common legal or factual question.

Rather than severing the claims, the court dismissed the defendants connected to the jail and hospital claims: Napa County, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Metzger, and Dr. Maqsood. This dismissal was without prejudice to Allen filing new actions against those parties. The court stated that the claims did not appear to be time-barred by that dismissal and that the case had not progressed beyond the pleading stage.

Order and Case Status

The court’s conclusion stated that the amended complaint pleaded cognizable § 1983 claims against Jovel, Perez, Bodner, and Monroy for excessive force and false arrest, and that all other defendants and claims were dismissed. The clerk was directed to issue summonses, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve Jovel, Perez, and Bodner without requiring Allen to prepay service fees. Allen had to provide an address for serving Monroy by November 1, 2019; the order stated that failing to do so would result in Monroy’s dismissal.

The court set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motions, Allen’s opposition, and any reply. It also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave warnings about opposing a future motion for summary judgment.