Estate of Charles Chivrell v. City of Arcata

Background

The order addresses two related cases arising from the same fatal law-enforcement encounter. The Estate Plaintiffs in Estate of Chivrell brought claims against City Defendants, including the City of Arcata, the Arcata Police Department, Police Chief Brian Ahearn, Sergeant Brian Hoffman, and Officers Joseph Rodes and Evan Beechel. They also sued State Defendants, including the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, and Officers Michael Griffin and Moises Cornejo-Mercado. The Arcata Plaintiffs in the related case are A.C., C.C., D.C., and T.C., who are identified in the opinion as biological children of Charles Chivrell and proceed through guardians ad litem.

According to the amended complaints, on September 9, 2021, Charles Chivrell was walking on a rural road while carrying a briefcase and a holstered firearm. After reports of a suspicious person with a gun, Arcata Police Department and California Highway Patrol officers responded. Sergeant Hoffman fired several pepperball rounds at Chivrell, and Officer Griffin later shot him in the back of the head, killing him.

The Estate Plaintiffs asserted eleven claims, including excessive force under federal and California law, claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, familial-association claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a claim under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and wrongful death. The Arcata Plaintiffs asserted First and Fourteenth Amendment familial-association claims and wrongful death. City Defendants moved to dismiss both amended complaints. The Estate Plaintiffs moved to strike ten affirmative defenses asserted by State Defendants.

Legal standards

The court evaluated the dismissal motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a legally recognized claim supported by enough facts to make liability plausible. It evaluated the motion to strike under Rule 12(f), which allows a court to remove an insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. An affirmative defense is sufficiently pleaded if it gives the opposing party fair notice of its nature.

Estate Plaintiffs’ claims against City Defendants

The court held that the Estate Plaintiffs’ only municipal-liability theory under Monell v. Department of Social Services was failure to train. The court had previously allowed that theory to proceed, and the City Defendants did not seek dismissal of it in this motion. Because the Estate Plaintiffs conceded that they had not pleaded separate custom, policy, practice, or ratification theories in this case, and because the failure-to-train theory was not disputed, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Monell claims.

The court also denied dismissal of the Estate’s Bane Act claim against the City. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not witness Chivrell’s death, explaining that the amended complaint left the Bane Act claim only to the Estate. The court further held that the claim did not require separate threats, intimidation, or coercion beyond the coercion allegedly inherent in the excessive-force claim. Allegations that officers discussed firing without warning and used pepperball rounds in violation of department policy were sufficient at the pleading stage.

As to Chief Ahearn, the court denied dismissal of the excessive-force claim. The amended complaint alleged that he had policymaking responsibility, was a moving force behind the alleged excessive force, and maintained inadequate training concerning encounters with people experiencing mental-health crises. The court also denied dismissal of the California excessive-force claim against him because the City Defendants raised their argument about a damages remedy under the California Constitution for the first time in reply and did not fully brief it.

The court granted dismissal of the First and Fourteenth Amendment familial-association claims against Chief Ahearn. The allegations that he caused the termination of the family relationships and acted with reckless or callous indifference merely recited claim elements and lacked supporting facts showing conduct that shocked the conscience.

The court granted dismissal of the Bane Act claim against Chief Ahearn because it agreed with the weight of federal district court authority that the Bane Act does not impose supervisory liability. The court did not dismiss the Bane Act claim against the City, explaining that California law allows municipal vicarious liability for employees’ acts and that the complaint sufficiently alleged a Bane Act violation by City officers.

The court granted dismissal of the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Chief Ahearn because the complaint did not plausibly allege that he personally participated in the incident, knew of the plan beforehand, sought to harm Chivrell, or engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. The court denied dismissal of that claim against Officers Rodes and Beechel because the complaint alleged that they heard another officer discuss firing on Chivrell and had an opportunity to stop the shooting but did not do so.

Motion to strike State Defendants’ affirmative defenses

The court granted the Estate Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Sixth Affirmative Defense, which asserted that the State was immune from punitive damages. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs did not seek punitive damages from the State.

The court denied the motion to strike the Third Affirmative Defense concerning California statutory immunities, reading that defense as applying only to state-law claims and not federal civil-rights claims. It also denied the motion as to the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Affirmative Defenses. Those defenses concerned, among other things, immunity for employees exercising due care, limits on punitive damages for state officers, responsibility for other persons’ conduct, alleged interference with peace officers, reasonable force, reasonable detention, and self-defense or defense of others. The opinion’s discussion refers to both the Sixteenth and Eighteenth defenses as asserting self-defense or defense of others.

Arcata Plaintiffs’ claims against City Defendants

The court denied dismissal of the Arcata Plaintiffs’ Monell claims. The complaint identified alleged policies and practices concerning officers’ interactions with people with disabilities and mental-health conditions, including training, communication, accommodation, crisis intervention, and de-escalation. The court held that these allegations plausibly supported custom, policy, or practice and failure-to-train theories. It also held that the alleged shooting could fall within the narrow single-incident circumstance in which one constitutional violation, combined with an obvious need for training, can support municipal liability at the pleading stage.

The court also denied dismissal of the Arcata Plaintiffs’ ratification theory. The complaint alleged that Chief Ahearn refused to investigate the officer-involved death and thereby approved his subordinates’ conduct.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment familial-association claim against Chief Ahearn because the complaint alleged conclusions rather than facts showing his involvement or conduct that shocked the conscience. It also granted dismissal of the Arcata Plaintiffs’ wrongful-death claim against him because the complaint alleged no facts showing that he was present, participated in the officers’ response, or used the force that led to Chivrell’s death.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam ruled as follows:

- In Estate of Chivrell, the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to the Estate Plaintiffs’ fourth, fifth, seventh, and ninth claims against Chief Ahearn, with leave to amend. It was denied as to the Estate Plaintiffs’ Monell claims, their first and sixth claims against Chief Ahearn, the seventh claim against the City, and the ninth claim against Officers Beechel and Rodes. - In Estate of Chivrell, the Estate Plaintiffs’ motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to the State Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense and denied as to the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Affirmative Defenses. - In the related case, the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to the Arcata Plaintiffs’ second and third claims against Chief Ahearn and denied as to their Monell claims.

The court stated that plaintiffs could file amended complaints addressing the identified pleading deficiencies within 21 days after the order was filed. It also scheduled a telephonic case-management conference.