Graves v. City of Palo Alto Police Department

Background

Harlan Dean Graves sued the City of Palo Alto Police Department and other defendants based on an alleged altercation with a security guard outside a Trader Joe’s store at the Town and Country Village shopping center in Palo Alto, California, and a Palo Alto police officer’s alleged transfer of Graves to his home against his will.

Magistrate Judge Cousins screened Graves’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The screening order found these claims adequately pleaded: false imprisonment against Forbes Security, Inc., the unnamed security guard employed by Forbes Security, and the Palo Alto Police Department; and civil battery against the unnamed security guard and Forbes Security. It found these claims inadequately pleaded: negligence against Forbes Security and Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Palo Alto Police Department. The order gave Graves permission to file an amended complaint.

Objections

Graves, who was proceeding without a lawyer, objected that the screening process violated his right to a jury trial. He also argued that his “Premises Liability-Negligent Security” claim and his § 1983 claim were adequately pleaded, and stated that additional facts might become available through discovery.

Court’s Analysis

The court conducted a new review of the magistrate judge’s order and the pleadings.

The court rejected Graves’s challenge to the screening process as lacking merit.

The court agreed that the premises-liability and negligent-security allegations were insufficiently pleaded because they did not clearly identify the legal theory being asserted. The complaint referred to the security guard’s alleged pushing and shoving, Forbes Security’s alleged negligent hiring, and both Forbes Security and Palo Alto Town and Country Village’s alleged control over the property. The court said these allegations left unclear whether Graves was asserting battery under a vicarious-liability theory, negligent hiring, premises liability, or multiple theories. It directed Graves to plead the theories as separate claims so the defendants would have fair notice of them.

The § 1983 claim was based on alleged unlawful seizure and unreasonable search. The court agreed that the unlawful-seizure theory was adequately pleaded. According to the complaint, a Palo Alto police officer approached Graves while he was sitting on a bench, gave him a sobriety test that he passed, forced him into a police vehicle, and transported him home.

The court agreed that the unreasonable-search theory was not adequately pleaded as written. The complaint alleged that the officer later entered Graves’s front yard, knocked on the front door, and eventually left. The court explained that the alleged conduct appeared to fall within the “knock and talk” exception, which allows an officer to approach a home’s surrounding area to initiate consensual contact. But the court found it unclear whether Graves’s theory was instead that his alleged unlawful detention made the later entry onto the property unlawful. It directed him to amend the complaint to clarify that basis if it was the intended theory.

The court also rejected the argument that possible facts from discovery relieved Graves of his obligation to plead legally cognizable claims.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila adopted Judge Cousins’s order in full and overruled Graves’s objections. The court extended the deadline for filing an amended complaint from March 31, 2020, to April 30, 2020. The opinion did not enter a final judgment on the claims described in the screening order.