Conso v. City of Eureka

Background

Molly Crane Conso’s claims arose from a May 31, 2020, protest in Eureka, California. She alleged that unidentified Eureka police officers and Humboldt County sheriff’s deputies grabbed her, shoved her, and shot her with pepper balls or other projectiles, causing physical injuries and emotional distress. She also alleged that Police Chief Steve Watson and Sheriff William Honsal were present or nearby, directed or knew about the use of force, and failed to prevent it.

Conso’s First Amended Complaint asserted eight claims. Claims 1 and 2 alleged excessive force and retaliation for protected speech under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claim 3 alleged municipal liability based on unconstitutional policies, customs, ratification, and inadequate training. Claims 4 through 8 were California-law claims involving assault and battery, negligence, negligent hiring or supervision, the Bane Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The City of Eureka and Chief Watson filed one motion to dismiss; Humboldt County and Sheriff Honsal filed the other.

Legal standard

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions, speculation, or formulaic statements of claim elements.

Analysis

Claims 1 and 2. The court held that Conso did not allege specific facts showing that Chief Watson or Sheriff Honsal personally participated in, directed, or caused the alleged constitutional violations. Their alleged presence and general responsibility for their departments were not enough because § 1983 does not impose liability on supervisors merely for the acts of subordinates. The court also found that Conso had not alleged facts showing that either official acted with retaliatory intent or that such intent caused the alleged harm. The motions were granted as to these officials, and Claims 1 and 2 were dismissed with prejudice as to Chief Watson and Sheriff Honsal. The claims remained active against the unidentified defendants.

Claim 3. The court dismissed the municipal-liability claim against the City, County, Chief Watson, Sheriff Honsal, and the unidentified defendants. It found that the complaint’s allegations about policies, customs, ratification, and inadequate training were conclusory. The few prior incidents cited did not adequately establish a widespread municipal practice, and failing to discipline an employee did not by itself establish ratification. The complaint also did not provide concrete facts about the City’s or County’s training programs or specific training deficiencies. Claim 3 was dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice.

Claims 5 and 6. The court found that the negligence allegations against the City and County lacked concrete facts about hiring, retention, training, supervision, discipline, pre-shooting conduct, or delayed medical care. Claim 5 was dismissed with prejudice as to the City and County, but its allegations concerning negligence by the unidentified defendants remained active. Claim 6, which repeated negligent hiring, supervision, and retention allegations against the City and County, was dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice. The court also stated that the statutory provision cited for Claim 6 did not provide a basis for that claim.

Claim 8. The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the complaint primarily repeated legal labels and did not allege sufficient facts showing extreme and outrageous conduct, the required intent or reckless disregard, or severe emotional distress. Claim 8 was dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice.

Claims 4 and 7. The defendants did not move to dismiss Claim 4, the assault-and-battery claim, or Claim 7, the California Bane Act claim. Both remained active in their entirety.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted both motions to dismiss. The case remained active only as to the unidentified defendants on Claims 1 and 2, as to the unidentified defendants on the remaining portion of Claim 5, and on Claims 4 and 7 in their entirety. Claims 3, 6, and 8 were dismissed in their entirety, and the specified dismissals were with prejudice.