Thissel v. Murphy
3:15-cv-05937
N.D. Cal.May 31, 2016Background
- On Dec. 22, 2014 Salinas officers responded to an alarm at the Thissel home; officers encountered Tony Matthews Jr., Jihan Thissel, and Jamie Frasier and detained/handcuffed Matthews and Jihan Thissel after a confrontational encounter involving force.
- Plaintiffs allege excessive force, assault/battery, false arrest/imprisonment, unlawful search of the home, emotional distress, defamation based on an allegedly false police report, malicious prosecution, and related Monell and state-law claims (19 causes of action).
- Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) tort claims against the City and Police Department; (2) § 1983 claims against the Police Department; (3) all claims against Chief McMillin; (4) state-law defamation, IIED and malicious prosecution claims based on the police report; (5) all claims of Sidney Thissel except for unlawful search.
- Court found many state-law and departmental claims barred by statutory immunities (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 815(a), 821.6) or as duplicative, and plaintiffs largely do not oppose dismissal of several categories.
- Result: most dismissals granted with prejudice; remaining claims include Fourth and § 1983 claims against officers (unlawful stop/detention, excessive force, false arrest/imprisonment, unlawful search), certain Monell claims against the City, and limited IIED and § 52.1 claims; Sidney Thissel may amend his other claims within 30 days only as to facts supporting them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Chief McMillin may proceed | McMillin is sued for supervisory/municipal liability | No direct participation; official-capacity claims duplicative of City | Dismissed with prejudice (plaintiffs do not oppose) |
| Whether City/Police Dept. are liable on common-law torts | City/Dept. can be sued for negligence and NIED | Cal. Gov’t Code § 815(a) bars public-entity common-law tort liability | Negligence and NIED dismissed with prejudice as to City and Police Dept. |
| Whether § 1983 and § 52.1 claims can proceed against Police Department | Department is a proper municipal defendant | Police Department is not a "person" under § 1983; § 52.1 duplicative of City claim | § 1983 and § 52.1 claims dismissed with prejudice against Police Department |
| Whether state-law defamation, IIED (based on report), conspiracy, and malicious prosecution survive | False police report and prosecutorial actions support these claims | Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6 immunizes public employees for acts in instituting/prosecuting proceedings; Heck may bar malicious-prosecution damages before favorable termination | Defamation and state-law malicious prosecution dismissed with prejudice; IIED and conspiracy dismissed to extent barred by § 821.6; state malicious-prosecution dismissal without prejudice to later § 1983 claim if criminal proceedings terminate in plaintiffs' favor |
| Whether Sidney Thissel has standing for all claims | As homeowner, Thissel can assert claims for wrongful invasion and related harms | Thissel did not witness/did not personally experience the events alleged | Only unlawful search and seizure claim (Fourth Amendment) survives as to Sidney; all other claims dismissed with leave to amend limited to 30 days |
| Whether plaintiffs may add new claims/parties in opposition brief | Plaintiffs seek leave to add claims/parties | Must follow Rule 15 and local rules; request in opposition is procedurally improper | Request denied without prejudice; must move properly for leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir.) (12(b)(6) plausibility standard discussion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal-conclusion rule; plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suits duplicative of municipal suits)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule for claims challenging conviction)
- Pagtakhan v. Alexander, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6 immunity extends to claims arising from prosecutorial actions)
- Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (police-report statements privileged as preparation for prosecution under § 821.6)
- Via v. City of Fairfield, 833 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (section 821.6 bars state-law claims based on allegedly false police reports)