Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

Background

The court had previously dismissed with prejudice Zoellner’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Arcata and his § 1983 claims against individual defendants based on supervisory liability. Zoellner then sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration and to amend his operative fifth amended complaint. He proposed adding municipal-liability claims under Monell, supervisory-liability claims, a § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence claim, and a fraud claim against Det. Sgt. Dokweiler and Det. Losey.

Zoellner argued that discovery had revealed that evidence used to persuade the prosecutor to charge him had been fabricated by two Arcata detectives and that the fabrication was partly caused by a failure to train. The court focused on deposition testimony from Chief Chapman, who described the matter as a possible “training issue” rather than intentional misconduct.

Motion for Reconsideration

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1), reconsideration required Zoellner to identify a material difference in fact or law and show that reasonable diligence had not previously revealed it. The court concluded that, even if Chapman’s testimony were newly discovered, it was not material enough to support the proposed claims.

For a Monell failure-to-train claim, a plaintiff must show more than inadequate training. The need for additional or different training must have been obvious, and the inadequacy must have been likely to cause constitutional violations such that city policymakers were deliberately indifferent. The court explained that a pattern of similar constitutional violations is ordinarily necessary, absent narrow circumstances involving consequences that are obviously unconstitutional or a total lack of training. It found Zoellner’s proposed allegations about earlier fabrications and the absence of training conclusory because they provided no specific supporting facts.

The court also rejected a possible ratification theory based on the lack of discipline or training after the alleged fabrication. It reasoned that ratification would require the City’s final policymaker to knowingly approve the fabrication. Chapman’s testimony indicated that he viewed the matter as a training issue rather than intentional misconduct, and the court found no evidence that he knowingly approved the alleged fabrication.

The court separately denied reconsideration as to proposed supervisory claims against City Manager Diemer and Chief Chapman. It found no plausible basis to treat Diemer as a supervisor responsible for police discipline or training. As to Chapman, the court found no personal involvement in the alleged fabrication and no sufficient causal connection between his alleged later failure to investigate and Zoellner’s injury. The court characterized any inadequate investigation as occurring after the alleged fabrication and therefore unable to have caused it.

Motion for Leave to Amend

The court treated the proposed fabrication-of-evidence and fraud claims as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, rather than as a motion for reconsideration. Rule 15 permits consideration of factors including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, and prior amendments.

The court denied leave to add the § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence claim because Zoellner had unduly delayed. His original and later complaints had already alleged that Losey falsely reported that Jason Martinez identified Zoellner as the perpetrator, and the operative fifth amended complaint had been filed in January 2021. Zoellner did not seek to add the claim until January 2022, after fact discovery had closed and while the deadlines for expert discovery and dispositive motions had passed. The court found that adding the claim would prejudice the defendants because they would have been entitled to additional discovery and could no longer challenge the new claim through summary judgment.

The court applied the same undue-delay and prejudice reasoning to the proposed fraud claim. It also found that claim futile because the alleged false statements concerned whether Martinez had identified Zoellner as the perpetrator, and Zoellner could not plausibly allege that he relied on those statements while defending himself on the ground that he was not the assailant.

Disposition

The court denied Zoellner’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and denied his motion for leave to amend. The order disposed of Docket No. 201.