Best v. Virgil Smith

Background

Brian Best sued the Sonoma County Sheriffs Department, Virgil Smith, Andrew Cash, Rich Celli, Ronald Chestnut, and the State of California. He alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, violations of federal and state criminal statutes, negligence, and other state-law claims. Best was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, so the court also had a duty to screen his complaint.

The Sonoma County defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognized claim supported by enough factual allegations. They alternatively sought a more definite statement, which is a request for a clearer and more specific pleading.

Claims Against Rich Celli

The court granted dismissal of Best’s claims against Celli. Best alleged Fourteenth Amendment and negligence claims based largely on Celli’s role in responding to Best’s complaints and the District Attorney’s Office’s decision not to prosecute Smith.

The court concluded that prosecutorial immunity barred the constitutional claims. It stated that this immunity also covered related investigative and administrative functions, including the functions attributed to Celli. The court also found that Best had not alleged the facts needed for an equal-protection claim, including membership in a protected class, different treatment from similarly situated people, and discriminatory intent. It further concluded that Best had not established a statutory exception to California’s general immunity for public entities or alleged the facts needed for negligence.

The court found that amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed these claims with prejudice, and dismissed Celli from the action.

Claims Against Ronald Chestnut

The court granted dismissal of Best’s Fourteenth Amendment and negligence claims against Chestnut. Chestnut had responded to Best’s complaint while serving as a grand juror. The court held that grand jurors receive immunity comparable to that given to judges and prosecutors for their protected functions. It also found no other basis for the claims or for the requested injunctive relief.

The court found amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed these claims with prejudice, and dismissed Chestnut from the action.

Claims Against Andrew Cash

Cash was sued only in his official capacity. The court explained that an official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the governmental entity rather than the individual official.

The court dismissed Best’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Cash because allegations that Cash conducted an inadequate internal-affairs investigation or refused to reopen the investigation did not establish a due-process violation. The court stated that Best had not identified a protected property interest in receiving an internal investigation. It also found that the allegations were insufficient to impose municipal liability under Monell, the rule allowing a local government to be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when an official policy, practice, or custom caused the constitutional injury.

The court also dismissed the remaining state-law claims against Cash because the official-capacity claims were actually claims against Sonoma County and the court had already ruled that those state-law claims were time barred for failure to timely file a government tort claim. The court found amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed these claims with prejudice, and dismissed Cash from the action.

Section 1983 Claim Against Sonoma County

The court granted dismissal of Best’s claim against Sonoma County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. Best relied on allegations involving a surveillance system that did not record, inadequate training and standards, and the Sheriff’s Office’s alleged failure to act after the jail incident. He also cited three other incidents involving alleged uses of force.

The court found that Best had not identified a specific unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom that caused his injury. It also found that he had not identified a duty to maintain a recording surveillance system, particular unconstitutional training policies, or prior similar incidents sufficient to establish a longstanding custom. The court concluded that the allegations did not meet the minimum requirements for municipal liability.

The court found that amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed these claims without prejudice. Sonoma County was dismissed from the action, and the court stated that Best could petition for leave to amend if other facts were discovered.

Claims Against Virgil Smith

The Sonoma County defendants conceded, for purposes of the motion, that Best had sufficiently pleaded a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 against Smith. They challenged Best’s Eighth Amendment claim and his claims based on several criminal statutes.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim because the Fourth Amendment provides the specific constitutional protection for excessive force used during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a person who is not yet serving a sentence. The court treated force during the jail booking process as occurring during the arrest-related part of custody.

The court also dismissed claims based on California Penal Code sections 149, 206, and 243(d), and 18 U.S.C. § 113. It held that these criminal statutes do not create an individual civil claim for damages.

The court found amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the Eighth Amendment and criminal-statute claims with prejudice. Smith remained a party because Best’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim against him was allowed to proceed.

Claims Against California

Best asserted state-law claims against California. The court dismissed those claims with prejudice based on its prior ruling that the claims were time barred. California had not yet been served because the required screening had not been completed. California was dismissed from the action.

Disposition

The court granted the Sonoma County defendants’ motion to dismiss. The claims against Cash, Celli, Chestnut, and California were dismissed with prejudice. The claims against the Sonoma County Sheriffs Department, identified in the order as Sonoma County, were dismissed without prejudice. Best’s Eighth Amendment and criminal-statute claims against Smith were dismissed with prejudice, while his Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim against Smith continued.

The court ordered Smith to answer the remaining claim by October 9, 2020, and scheduled a case-management conference for October 26, 2020. The order terminated Docket Number 51.