Flournoy v. Walmart Store, Pleasanton CA

Background

James Henry Flournoy, a pretrial detainee at the Marin County Jail, filed a first amended complaint without a lawyer seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The claims arose from a January 15, 2019 incident at the Pleasanton Walmart store and the resulting arrest and prosecution for shoplifting.

Flournoy alleged that he and his girlfriend entered the store to return items and shop. He alleged that Walmart asset-protection agent Byron Gadson questioned him about items in a white plastic bag, that asset-protection agent Jane Doe said the items belonged to Walmart, and that Gadson pushed him and knocked the bag from his arms. Flournoy further alleged that Gadson and Walmart employees John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 wrestled with him, pinned him down, and that John Doe 1 lifted him and slammed him head-first onto concrete. He alleged that Officer Johnston arrived, handcuffed him, investigated the incident, and arrested him after speaking with witnesses.

Flournoy claimed false arrest or imprisonment, excessive force, and malicious prosecution against the private defendants and Officer Johnston. He also alleged that Walmart defendants and others falsely filed criminal charges and withheld store surveillance video. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it.

Legal standard

Because Flournoy was a prisoner seeking damages, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of federal rights and action by a person acting under color of state law, meaning action fairly attributable to the government.

Claims against the private defendants

The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that Gadson, Jane Doe, John Doe 1, or John Doe 2 acted under color of state law. The allegations did not show that the private defendants performed an exclusively governmental function, acted jointly or conspiratorially with the police, or acted because of government coercion or significant encouragement.

The fact that the private defendants held Flournoy until the police arrived did not, by itself, establish joint action with the police. The court also found that allegations that the private defendants knew Officer Johnston because he regularly responded to Walmart shoplifting calls were speculative and conclusory. The court separately held that the allegations did not show that Walmart or Security Six had a policy, decision, or custom that caused a constitutional violation.

Claims against Officer Johnston

The court held that the amended complaint did not connect Officer Johnston to the alleged excessive force. According to the allegations, Flournoy had already been pinned down by Gadson and the Walmart employees when Johnston arrived, so the complaint did not plausibly allege that Johnston actually and proximately caused that force.

The court also rejected the false-arrest claim against Johnston. An arrest is supported by probable cause when the facts known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe there was a fair probability that the suspect committed a crime. The court concluded that Johnston encountered Flournoy pinned down after a serious physical struggle over suspected shoplifted merchandise and could reasonably credit Gadson’s and Jane Doe’s account. The court stated that Johnston therefore had probable cause to arrest Flournoy, even if conflicting accounts existed and the store’s surveillance video was not yet available.

Malicious-prosecution claim

The court held that the alleged conduct by the Walmart manager, Gadson, and Jane Doe was private conduct. Regardless of whether that conduct was wrongful, the court stated that private conduct alone could not support a claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court stated that Flournoy’s claims against Walmart and its asset-protection agents and employees, as well as against Security Six Company, were dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in state court.