142 F. Supp. 3d 986
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- Blanco was stopped by Lemoore officer Kevin Cosper, arrested after drugs were found, and transported to the Kings County jail where Deputy Maribel Mixon processed her.
- Mixon conducted a strip search in a female-only area; after finding additional contraband she summoned Cosper, who entered and questioned Blanco while she was undressed.
- Blanco alleges constitutional violations (First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a California constitutional privacy claim, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seeks punitive damages against the officers.
- County and Mixon, and City and Cosper, moved to dismiss various claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court considered plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal standards.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part: Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim against Cosper survives; First, Fourth, Fifth § 1983 claims against Cosper and Monell claim against the City dismissed with leave to amend; California constitutional privacy and NIED claims dismissed without leave to amend; IIED claims against officers and vicarious municipal liability survive.
- Court denied motion to strike punitive damages as to Cosper given plausible allegations of reckless/intentional misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (silence) | Blanco claims Cosper re‑interrogated her in retaliation for invoking right to remain silent. | Cosper/City: complaint lacks facts connecting silence to later questioning. | Dismissed as to Cosper/City (leave to amend). |
| Fifth Amendment self‑incrimination | Blanco asserts invocation of Fifth was violated by subsequent coercive questioning. | Cosper/City: no allegation statements were compelled into use in criminal proceedings. | Dismissed as to Cosper/City (leave to amend). |
| Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/cross‑gender search) | Strip/body‑cavity search and presence of male officer during search violated Fourth Amendment. | Cosper/City: Cosper did not participate in search; presence alone insufficient. | Dismissed as to Cosper/City (leave to amend if pleads integral participation). |
| Fourteenth Amendment privacy (bodily privacy) | Viewing/questioning while nude violated liberty/privacy under Due Process. | (City argued Monell deficiency) | Claim against Cosper survives; Monell claim against City dismissed with leave to amend. |
| California constitutional privacy remedy | Blanco seeks money damages under Cal. Const. art. I § 1 for invasion of privacy. | Defendants: no private right to monetary damages under state privacy provision. | Dismissed as to all defendants without leave to amend. |
| IIED and NIED (state torts) | IIED: conduct was outrageous and caused severe emotional distress; NIED: duty/breach caused distress. | City/County: governmental immunity and insufficient pleading of statutory basis; Defs argue NIED lacks duty. | IIED against Cosper (and vicarious municipal liability) survives; NIED dismissed as to all defendants without leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (labels/conclusions insufficient; plausibility required)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires municipal policy or deliberate indifference)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure‑to‑train requires deliberate indifference; pattern or obviousness normally required)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (Fifth Amendment violation only when compelled statements are used in criminal case)
- York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963) (Fourteenth Amendment protection for bodily privacy from opposite‑sex viewing)
- Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1985) (prison privacy interests can be limited by compelling penological interests)
- Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dept., 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross‑gender strip searches ordinarily implicate Fourth Amendment)