Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

Background

The plaintiffs are the Estate of Charles Chivrell, Arielle Chivrell, K.C., and D.C. The opinion states that K.C. and D.C. are minors and that Arielle Chivrell is their mother and legal custodian. The plaintiffs alleged that on September 9, 2021, Charles Chivrell, whom the opinion describes as a mentally ill 35-year-old man, was walking on a rural road while carrying a briefcase and a holstered firearm. Officers from the Arcata Police Department and the California Highway Patrol responded to reports of a suspicious person with a gun. The officers followed Chivrell in patrol cars and yelled for him to stop. Officers then fired pepperball rounds at his back. After he dropped his briefcase and began to run, California Highway Patrol Officer Michael Griffin shot him in the back of the head, killing him.

The plaintiffs asserted eleven claims, including excessive force under federal law, claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, familial-association claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and several California-law claims. The City Defendants were the City of Arcata, the Arcata Police Department, Police Chief Brian Ahearn, Sergeant Brian Hoffman, and Officer Joseph Rodes. The State Defendants were the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Michael Griffin.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, but it does not accept conclusory allegations as facts. A complaint must contain enough factual content to make liability plausible. The court also explained that it generally should allow amendment unless the pleading’s defects could not possibly be fixed with additional facts.

City Defendants’ motion

The plaintiffs asserted municipal-liability claims, known as Monell claims, against the City of Arcata and the Arcata Police Department. A Monell claim requires allegations that a government entity’s policy, custom, or deliberate failure to train was the moving force behind a constitutional violation.

The court dismissed the Monell claims based on an alleged custom, practice, or officially adopted policy because the plaintiffs did not specifically identify the policies or customs they claimed caused the constitutional violations. The court also dismissed the Monell ratification theory because the complaint did not allege facts showing that Chief Ahearn delegated policymaking authority or ratified unconstitutional conduct. Those dismissals were with leave to amend, meaning the plaintiffs could try to correct the pleading defects.

The court denied dismissal of the Monell claim based on failure to train. The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the City Defendants failed to train officers about interacting with people with mental disabilities, accommodating disabilities, de-escalating encounters, and using deadly force in such situations. The court also concluded that the alleged shooting could fall within the narrow circumstances in which a single incident may support a failure-to-train claim, because the officers allegedly made life-threatening decisions.

The court dismissed Chief Ahearn from the first, fourth, and fifth claims, which were the Monell-related claims, with leave to amend. It denied the motion as to the sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims against him: California excessive force, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and wrongful death. The opinion notes that the parties’ motion papers did not address those additional claims.

State Defendants’ motion

The court denied the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the State Defendants discriminated against Chivrell because of his disability by yelling at, following, and shooting him. The court also concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged that the officers knew he had a mental disability and that they acted against him because of that disability, at least at the pleading stage.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Arielle Chivrell’s, K.C.’s, and D.C.’s claims for loss of familial association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint’s allegations that they shared a close relationship and special bond with Chivrell were conclusory and did not provide enough facts to establish a constitutionally protected familial relationship. The dismissal was with leave to amend.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Arielle Chivrell’s, K.C.’s, and D.C.’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim. The court explained that the claim did not provide derivative liability for people who were not present and did not witness the violence or threats. Because the plaintiffs did not allege that they witnessed the violence, the dismissal was without leave to amend.

The court granted the motion to dismiss K.C. and D.C.’s wrongful-death claim. The complaint stated that Chivrell was their biological father but did not plead facts plausibly establishing the parent-child relationship required for standing under California law. The dismissal was with leave to amend.

Other rulings and deadline

The court granted the unopposed request to appoint Arielle Chivrell as guardian ad litem for K.C. and D.C. The opinion also states that the plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss their sixth through eleventh state-law claims against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol. The court allowed the plaintiffs 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint addressing defects that could be cured.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore entered an order granting in part and denying in part both the City Defendants’ and State Defendants’ motions to dismiss.