Arellano v. Cnty. of San Diego

RAUL ARELLANO, JR., CDCR #AH-1995, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2404-GPC-KSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

August 21, 2020

ORDER: GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [ECF No. 148];

GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [ECF No. 149];

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER [ECF No. 180]; and

ISSUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS FROM THE ACTION.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Raul Arellano Jr. ("Arellano" or "Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8, 2014. (See Compl. ECF No. 1.) The operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), alleges violations of Arellano's constitutional rights by several defendants, including the City of San Diego and County of San Diego, arising out of Arellano's arrest in Tijuana, Mexico on November 7, 2010, pursuant to a warrant issued by the San Diego County Superior Court. (See SAC, ECF No. 62 at 7-9.)

Currently before the Court is are two Motions for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, one filed by Defendant County of San Diego ("County") (ECF No. 148) and the other filed by Defendant City of San Diego ("City"). (ECF No. 149.) After he was notified of the requirements for opposing summary pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (see Nots., ECF Nos. 150 and 151), Arellano filed an Opposition to Defendants' motions on November 4, 2019 (Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 157). The County and City filed Replies on November 7, 2019. (See County Reply, ECF. No. 158; City Reply, ECF No. 159.) After receiving an extension of time, Arellano filed a Surreply on January 2, 2020. (Pl.'s Surreply, ECF No. 168.)

Additionally, before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Default Judgment against Defendants. (ECF No. 180.)

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 148 and 149), DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, DISMISSES Defendants Guerrero Bail Bonds, Officer Guerrero, the San Diego Violent Crimes Task Force, and the U.S. Marshall's Office, and Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why Jesus Guerrero, P. Beal, and the United States should not be dismissed from this case.

/ / /

/ / /

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2014, Arellano filed a Complaint, alleging that law enforcement officials from the City of San Diego, Guerrero Bail Bonds, "Officer Guerrero," the "Fugitive Task Force" and other "arresting officers" violated his Constitutional rights when they apprehended him in Mexico pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in San Diego, California. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2.) Specifically, Arellano alleged arresting officers used excessive force against him, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (See id.) On November 3, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and directed U.S. Marshals to execute service of the Complaint on Arellano's behalf. (See Order, ECF No. 3.)

On March 2, 2016, Arellano filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (See ECF No. 27.) In it, he again alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested in Tijuana, Mexico. In his FAC, Plaintiff named: (1) City of El Cajon; (2) City of San Diego; (3) County of San Diego; (4) Guerrero Bail Bonds; (5) Henry Guerrero, a bail bondsman with Guerrero Bail Bonds, (6) San Diego Regional Fugitive Task Force; (7) United States Deputy Marshal ("USDM"), Jesus Guerrero; (8) USDM, P. Beal; (9) the United States Marshal's Office and (10) the United States of America, as defendants. (FAC, ECF No. 27 at 2-3.) In his FAC, Arellano sought damages related to his arrest and pre-trial detention in Mexico, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. (FAC at 7-8, 14.) Specifically, Arellano alleged violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 7.) In his FAC, he further sought to bring a Bivens action for money damages against U.S. Deputy Marshals, P. Beal and Jesus Guerrero. (Id. at 31.)

On March 16, 2016, the County filed a Motion to Dismiss Arellano's FAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See County Mot. to Dism., ECF No. 30.) On April 26, 2016, the City of El Cajon also filed a Motion to Dismiss Arellano's FAC for failure tostate a claim. (See El Cajon Mot. to Dism., ECF No. 42.) On April 27, 2016, the City of San Diego filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC for failure to identify a cognizable legal theory or allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory, pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (City Mot. to Dism., ECF No. 43). On December 28, 2016, this Court dismissed Arellano's claims against the City of El Cajon's with prejudice. (Order, ECF No. 58 at 22.) As to the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Id.)

On January 26, 2017, Arellano filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), in which he named the same ten defendants as named in the FAC.¹ As to the City and County of San Diego (hereafter "Municipal Defendants"),² Arellano alleges Municipal Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because: (1) they issued or were responsible for the execution of the warrant that led to Arellano's arrest in Mexico; (see SAC at 23); (2) the officers who harmed him admitted they were part of the "agenc[ies] mention[ed] here, plus part of the Mexican police," (id. at 24); and (3) Municipal Defendants are responsible for the officers' actions because they had a policy authorizing agents to violate a person's constitutional rights while executing a warrant or, alternatively, that Municipal Defendants failed to train their agents to refrain from violating Plaintiff's rights. (Id. at 23-24.) Arellano also alleges in his SAC that Municipal Defendants violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. (See also id. at 13-14.)

Municipal Defendants filed motions to dismiss the SAC on February 17, 2017. (See City Mot. Dism. SAC, ECF No. 64; County Mot. to Dism. SAC, ECF No. 65.) OnAugust 18, 2017, the Court granted the motions in part and denied them in part.³ (Order, ECF No. 87.) Specifically, the Court dismissed Arellano's 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 claims as to the City and County of San Diego but denied their motions to dismiss Arellano's § 1983 claims. The Court, however, concluded that, "to the extent Plaintiff claims that Municipal Defendants are liable under § 1983 for the execution of the warrant that led to his arrest" he failed to state a claim. As such, the Court found Municipal Defendants "were not liable for the harm [Arellano] alleges to have resulted because of the issuance of a valid warrant." (Id. at 9, fn. 6.)

The City and County filed Answers to the SAC on August 8, 2017 and August 30, 2017, respectively. (See City Answer, ECF No. 89; County Answer, ECF No. 90.)⁴ The case proceeded with Arellano and Municipal Defendants engaging in discovery. On September 19, 2019, both the City and County filed separate motions for summary judgment which are currently pending before the Court. (See County Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 148; City, Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 149.)

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against (1) Guerrero Bail Bonds; (2) Officer Guerrero; (3) San Diego Violent Crimes Task Force; (4) Jesus Guerrero; (5) P. Beal; (6) U.S. Marshall's Office. (ECF No. 145.) The Court denied this motion on February 28, 2020 due to Plaintiff's failure to first request that the clerk enter default. (ECF No. 175 at 2.) On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider which is currently pending before the Court. (ECF No. 180).

III. UNDISPUTED FACTS

On January 5, 2010, the San Diego County Superior Court in El Cajon issued awarrant for Arellano's arrest after he failed to appear for his court hearing on January 4, 2010. (SAC, ECF No. 62 at 7-9, 18; City Exs., ECF No. 149-2, Ex. 2 at 5.) Plaintiff's bail was forfeited. (City Exs., ECF No. 149-2 Ex. 2 at 5.) Henry L. Guerrero of Guerrero Bail Bonds unsuccessfully tried to locate Arellano between January and June of 2010. (Pl.'s Opp. ECF No. 62 at 12, 18, 22.) In July 2010, Arellano escaped from a Mexican Immigration facility in Mexicali, Mexico, and was wanted by Mexican authorities. (SAC, ECF No. 62 at 44; County P. & A. Supp. Summ. J. Mot. [County P. & A.], ECF No. 148-1 at 1; City P. & A. Supp. Summ. J. Mot. [City P. & A.], ECF No. 149-1 at 2; City Exs., ECF No. 149-2 Ex. 8 at 36.)

On November 7, 2010, Deputy U.S. Marshals ("DUSM") Jesus Guerrero and P. Beal and agents from the Mexican State Police Investigative Liaisons (also known as "Policia Estatal Preventiva," or "PEP") located and arrested Arellano inside a hotel lobby in Tijuana, Mexico. (Pl.'s Opp. ECF No. 62 at 7, 10, 18, 44; County P. & A., ECF No. 148- 1 at 2; see also County Exs., ECF No. 148-3, Ex. 3 at 33; City P. & A., ECF No. 149- 1 at 2; see also, City Exs., ECF No. 149-2, Ex. 8 at 36; Pl.'s Surreply, ECF No. 168 at 2.) Arellano was taken into custody and transported to PEP headquarters in Tijuana where he was held overnight. (SAC, ECF No. 62 at 11, 28, 44; see County Exs., ECF No. 148-3 at 33; City Exs., ECF No. 149-2 at 36.) On November 8, 2010, PEP transported Plaintiff to Mexicali to interview him at the Mexican Immigration regarding his prior escape. (Pl. Opp., ECF No. 62 at 11, 17, 44; County Exs.,...