Sebring v. City of Petaluma
4:17-cv-06483
N.D. Cal.Feb 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Sean Sebring alleges that Petaluma police officers Ron Kline and Alex Thompson unlawfully detained, searched, and used excessive force on him on July 8, 2016, including tightened handcuffs and alleged fondling of his genitals; he claims false imprisonment, sexual battery, and related state and federal causes of action.
- Plaintiff alleges he was arrested, held, and released on bail without being promptly taken before a judge; he also alleges interference when requesting counsel and improper searches of his person and effects.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); they also requested judicial notice of a criminal docket and other documents.
- Plaintiff failed to timely oppose the motion, prompting an order to show cause; he later explained mail delivery problems and the court discharged the OSC.
- The court found the complaint deficient under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard for lack of particularized factual allegations tying specific facts to each cause of action and for lumping defendants together; the court granted the motion to dismiss in full, dismissing one claim with prejudice and others with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Sebring contends facts alleged support § 1983 and state claims (excessive force, false imprisonment, sexual battery, privacy, fraud). | Defendants argue the complaint is conclusory, mixes claims, and fails to plead facts showing plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly. | Court: Complaint is insufficient; most claims dismissed with leave to amend to add specific factual allegations. |
| Judicial notice of proffered documents | Plaintiff did not oppose. | Defendants sought notice of criminal docket, apology letter, and police complaint form. | Court: Judicially noticed the criminal docket; denied judicial notice for apology letter and complaint form. |
| Municipal liability (City of Petaluma) for common-law claims | Sebring sued the City on common-law claims. | City argued public entity immunity unless statutory exceptions (Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2) alleged. | Court: Common-law claims against City dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff may amend to allege liability under § 815.2. |
| Specific torts (excessive force, false imprisonment, sexual battery, privacy, fraud) | Sebring alleges facts supporting each tort generally. | Defendants argue many causes lack specific facts, some are duplicative or fail to meet heightened pleading (fraud) or legal prerequisites (deceit re: prompt magistrate). | Court: Excessive force, false imprisonment, battery, sexual battery, privacy, negligence, deceit (fraud) dismissed with leave to amend (fraud requires Rule 9(b) detail); false promise claim dismissed with prejudice. Court cautioned against relying solely on lapel-camera recording for privacy claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (12(b)(6) testing legal sufficiency of claims)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (complaint allegations must be accepted as true at motion to dismiss)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard discussion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content permitting inference of liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard and rejection of mere labels/conclusions)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend ordinarily granted unless amendment would be futile)
- Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994) (documents referenced in complaint may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (court need not accept allegations that contradict judicially noticed facts)
- United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud)