Brown v. Alexander

BARRY BROWN, JENNIFER BROWN, JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. JON ALEXANDER, DEAN WILSON, ED FLESHMAN, JULIE CAIN, CINDYSALATNAY, COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, and DONALD CROCKETT, Defendants.

Case No. 13-01451 SC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: December 13, 2013

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court are separate but related motions to dismiss the above-captioned Plaintiffs' complaint, filed by (1) the "County Defendants," Jon Alexander, Dean Wilson, Ed Fleshman, Julie Cain, Cindy Salatnay, and the County of Del Norte, California; and (2) Donald Crockett. ECF Nos. 31 ("Crockett MTD"), 32 ("County MTD") (both filed under seal). The motions are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 41 & 42 ("Opp'ns") (both filed under seal), 44 ("County Reply"), 46 ("Crockett Reply"). As explained below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the County Defendants' motion todismiss, and GRANTS Defendant Crockett's motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Requests for Judicial Notice

All parties filed requests for judicial notice, ECF Nos. 27 ("County RJN"), 30 ("Crockett RJN"), though Plaintiffs' request is included in their opposition to Defendant Crockett's RJN, ECF No. 39 ("Opp'n to RJN") (filed under seal). The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' unopposed RJN under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Plaintiffs object to the County RJN on the grounds that the County Defendants do not explain why the documents -- all documents from the Del Norte Superior Court's Juvenile Division -- are relevant. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objection on that point, but Plaintiffs are right that the Court may only take judicial notice of the fact that the documents exist (not any facts alleged in the documents). To that extent, the Court GRANTS the County Defendants' RJN because the fact of the Superior Court's proceedings and the documents' existence is not subject to reasonable dispute. Further, these documents are relevant -- as discussed below -- to whether the Court has jurisdiction over this case.

Plaintiffs object to the Crockett RJN on the same grounds discussed above. The Court makes the same findings: Plaintiffs' objections are OVERRULED to the extent that they challenge the Court's ability to take judicial notice of another court's proceedings, or the filings of certain documents. The Crocket RJN is GRANTED.

The Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of anyfact from any of the RJNs' exhibits. At the pleading stage, the Court cannot resolve or consider factual disputes outside the pleadings without converting these motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment, which the Court declines to do. See United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cnty., 547 F.3d 943, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2008) (district courts may take judicial notice of certain records, for limited purposes, and a court need not convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment if the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute). Again, the Court takes notice only of these documents' existence and the state court proceedings.

Separately, Plaintiffs suggest that all Defendants have somehow engaged in violations of Rule 26 by filing in their RJNs documents that Plaintiffs do not have. The Court finds no evidence of this. Defendants filed only documents from court proceedings in which Plaintiffs were undisputedly involved.

B. Summary of Allegations

The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, ECF No. 12 ("FAC"), and, where appropriate, the parties' RJNs. Plaintiff Jennifer Brown is the daughter of Plaintiff Barry Brown. FAC ¶ 7. Jane Does 1 and 2, born January 1, 2007, are Ms. Brown's daughters and Mr. Brown's maternal granddaughters. Id. Defendant Crockett is the father of Jane Does 1 and 2. Id. ¶ 9. He also co-owns a flower bulb farm, which is a major employer in Del Norte County, and has been a contributor to the electoral campaigns of the elected Defendants Alexander and Wilson. Id. ¶ 8. He and Ms. Brown were married from July 2007 until August 2009, when their divorce was finalized and shared custody of theirdaughters was appointed with primary care to Ms. Brown. Id. ¶¶ 8-9.

The County Defendants are Jon Alexander, former District Attorney for Del Norte County during all relevant times; Sheriff Dean Wilson; Sheriff's Detective Ed Fleshman; Del Norte County Child Protective Services ("CPS") Supervisor Julie Cain; CPS Social Worker Cindy Salatnay; and the County of Del Norte ("County"), which operated, controlled, and maintained the Sheriff's Department, CPS, and District Attorney's Office ("DAO"). Id. ¶¶ 4-6.

The allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint arise from Ms. Brown and Mr. Crockett's acrimonious divorce and Ms. Brown's contention that Mr. Crockett abused and molested Jane Does 1 and 2. As it must on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the truth of these allegations.

Plaintiffs allege that in June 2009, Jane Doe 1 told Ms. Brown that Mr. Crockett had molested her. Id. ¶ 10. Ms. Brown called a County sheriff and reported her daughters' complaints, after which the sheriff took no action. Id. Ms. Brown took Jane Doe 1 to the hospital, where hospital staff refused to perform a Sexual Assault Response Team ("SART"). Id. One week later, a SART exam was performed at the hospital, but no action or further investigation occurred; neither Mr. Crockett nor Jane Doe 1 were interviewed; and no prior complaint against Mr. Crockett was investigated. Id.

Plaintiffs allege that several years later, around late November 2011, Jane Does 1 and 2 told Ms. Brown that Mr. Crockett showed them movies of naked men and women on television. Id. ¶ 11. Around December 3, 2011, Ms. Brown reported this to the Countysheriff's department, after which a deputy took a taped statement from the daughters but allowed Mr. Crockett to pick them up for visitation. Id. No further investigation occurred, and when Ms. Brown asked Defendants Fleshman and Alexander, as well as other county deputies and a city police officer, why no authorities had taken action, she was told that her daughters' interview tape had been destroyed and that showing pornography to children was not a criminal offense. Id.

Around January 27, 2012, Jane Does 1 and 2 returned to Ms. Brown's home after staying with their father for several days, after which the girls appeared physically ill and disheveled. Id. ¶ 12. Ms. Brown took them to the hospital, where Sutter Coast Hospital Urgent Care ("SCHUC") examined them and filed a report with Child Welfare Services ("CWS"), accusing Mr. Crockett of medical neglect. Id. ¶ 13. Two days later, on January 29, 2012, Jane Does 1 and 2 returned to the hospital, where SCHUC filed another CWS report alleging that both children claimed to have been sexually molested by Mr. Crockett. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants (apparently excluding Mr. Crockett) were made aware of these claims but chose not to investigate them because Mr. Crockett's family exerted so much political and personal influence in Del Norte County. Id.

On January 30, 2012, Mr. Brown contacted the District Attorney of neighboring Humboldt County to obtain a SART exam of Jane Does 1 and 2. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs did so apparently because they were concerned that Jane Does 1 and 2's complaints had gone ignored; Defendants had not investigated any claims of abuse; and because Mr. Crockett still had court-ordered visitations with hisdaughters, which Plaintiffs worried would provide opportunities for abuse. See id. Mr. Brown contacted Defendants via letter at this point, and also informed Mr. Alexander by phone that he would take Jane Does 1 and 2 out of Del Norte County for their safety. Id. Mr. Brown communicated with Defendants -- specifically Mr. Alexander, the District Attorney -- per an exception to the California kidnapping statute for cases in which a person with a right to custody of a child who was the victim of domestic violence may take or conceal the child as a protective measure, provided that the person contact the district attorney of the county where the child resided. See Cal. Pen. Code § 278.7.¹ Mr. Brown then took Jane Does 1 and 2 to Humboldt County. FAC ¶ 15.

Soon after that, on February 8, 2012, a Del Norte County Magistrate Judge issued an arrest warrant for Mr. and Ms. Brown, per the request of Defendants Wilson, Fleshman, and Alexander. Id. ¶ 16; County RJN Ex. B ("Warrant"). According to Plaintiffs, the affidavit in support of the Warrant alleged that Mr. and Ms. Brown had kidnapped Jane Does 1 and 2 and that their whereabouts were unknown. FAC ¶ 16. Plaintiffs contend these Defendants knew that the basis for the Warrant was false at the time they presented it to the magistrate, because Mr. Brown had contacted the DAO with the details required per California Penal Code section 278.7's exception to the kidnapping statute. See id. Nevertheless, the Warrant issued and was distributed to law enforcement. Id. On February 9, 2012, Mr. Brown was arrested by Defendant Fleshman, whoapparently agreed with Defendant Alexander at the time of the arrest that no criminal charges would be filed against Mr. Brown. Id. Regardless, Mr. Brown was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted on felony child stealing charges, creating a felony arrest record that was disseminated to various criminal background databases. Id. Mr. Brown was released within hours of his arrest, and no charges were filed. Id. ¶ 18. He contends that his reputation as a retired peace officer and private investigator has been harmed and that he has suffered financial loss as a result of his arrest. Id.

Around March 10, 2012 -- a month after Mr. Brown's arrest -- Ms. Brown was arrested at her home. Id. ¶ 19. According to Plaintiffs, six police officers used excessive force to subdue and arrest Ms. Brown, who did not resist. Id. She was then jailed in a glass holding cell for two...