Terrell v. City of Petaluma

Background

Bruce Terrell alleged that, while he was organizing a storage unit on September 2, 2021, Petaluma police officers ordered him to show his hands and leave. He alleged that Officers Adam Wirtz and Brandon Haug grabbed him, struck his head against the storage-unit door, threw him face-first onto concrete, and roughly handcuffed him. He alleged that he suffered serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, and that he was left bleeding in a patrol car for about an hour before being taken to a hospital.

Mr. Terrell asserted fourteen claims, including excessive force, due-process violations, false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful seizure or detention, supervisory and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, negligence, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of California’s Ralph Act and Bane Act. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing mainly that the Petaluma Police Department and Chief Ken Savano were improper defendants.

Petaluma Police Department

The defendants argued that the Police Department was not a suable “person” under § 1983 and was duplicative of the City of Petaluma. The court rejected the first argument, relying on Ninth Circuit authority holding that California municipalities and police departments can be sued for alleged civil-rights violations. The court therefore denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the § 1983 claims against the Petaluma Police Department.

The court also declined to dismiss the Police Department as duplicative at this stage. Although Mr. Terrell’s allegations suggested that the Department might be an agency or subdivision of the City, the record was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that the Department should be removed. The defendants could renew that argument later, after a more developed record.

Chief Savano

The defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately allege Chief Savano’s personal liability under § 1983 or state law. Mr. Terrell responded that the Chief was liable as a supervisor for allegedly failing to address a pattern of rights violations. The court found that the complaint contained only generalized statements about training, supervision, discipline, and deliberate indifference, rather than facts showing Chief Savano’s personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged violations.

The court dismissed the claims against Chief Savano in his personal capacity because Mr. Terrell had not pleaded sufficient facts. The court granted Mr. Terrell leave to amend those claims. The court also dismissed the claims against Chief Savano in his official capacity without leave to amend, holding that those claims duplicated the claims against the City and that the cited exception did not apply.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin concluded that the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order.