Castro v. Utah Cnty.

1

PEDRO CASTRO and AMALIA CASTRO, a married couple, Plaintiffs, v. UTAH COUNTY, Political Subdivision of the State of Utah; SGT. JEFF S. ROBINSON, a Deputy of the Utah County Sheriff's Office; and DOE DEPUTIES 1 through 4, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00464-JCB

United States District Court, D. Utah

September 20, 2024

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

JARED C. BENNETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, all parties have consented to Judge Jared C. Bennett conducting all proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment.^[1]Before the court is Defendants Utah County and Sgt. Jeff S. Robinson's (“Sgt. Robinson”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Pedro Castro (“Mr. Castro”) and Amalia Castro's (“Mrs. Castro”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).^[2] After holding oral argument on the motion the court took the motion under advisement and permitted the parties to file notices of supplemental authority on certain issues.^[3] The court has carefully considered the parties' written submissions and counsel's oral arguments. Based upon the analysis set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

For purposes of this motion, the court assumes that the following factual allegations from the operative complaint are true. On August 11, 2021, at about 12:15 p.m., Plaintiffs arrived by car at a restaurant in Ephraim, Utah, to meet a friend.^[4] Soon after Plaintiffs arrived at the restaurant, two Utah County Sheriff Deputies came into the restaurant, spoke to the hostess, and left.^[5]Plaintiffs departed from the restaurant at approximately 1:05 p.m. and traveled to their friend's house to drop him off.^[6] From there, Plaintiffs proceeded to a store in Ephraim and then to a nearby cemetery.^[7]Plaintiffs left the cemetery at around 2:40 p.m. and headed northwest toward Nephi Utah.^[8]

Sometime near 3:10 p.m., as Plaintiffs were entering the Nephi city limits, they realized that a white vehicle driven by a male seemed to be following them and, at times, was following them very closely.^[9]The white vehicle continued to follow Plaintiffs into Nephi but eventually turned into a gas station.^[10]Plaintiffs then proceeded to a cemetery in Nephi, where they arrived at about 3:30 p.m. and left at about 4:00 p.m.^[11]Plaintiffs eventually got on northbound Interstate 15 to travel to Mrs. Castro's brother's house in Payson, Utah, and then to their son's home in Spanish Fork, Utah.^[12]

As they were approaching the Payson offramp, Plaintiffs saw four Utah County Sheriff vehicles on Interstate 15.^[13]One of the Utah County Sherriff vehicles rapidly caught up behind Plaintiffs, followed by three other Utah County Sheriff vehicles.^[14] The four Utah County Sheriff vehicles then “boxed in” Plaintiffs by surrounding Plaintiffs' vehicle on all four sides.^[15]Plaintiffs proceeded to exit 248 in Payson with three of the Utah County Sheriff vehicles continuing to follow Plaintiffs' vehicle.^[16]Plaintiffs got off Interstate 15 at exit 248 in Payson and drove to a restaurant to meet Mrs. Castro's brother.^[17]When Plaintiffs entered the restaurant parking lot, the three Utah County Sheriff vehicles slowly drove past.^[18]

Plaintiffs eventually left the restaurant and proceeded to drive in Payson.^[19]As Plaintiffs approached a traffic light, Mr. Castro turned on his left turn signal intending to make a U-turn.^[20]After the traffic light turned green, Plaintiffs realized that an unmarked police vehicle was behind them.^[21]Instead of making a U-turn, Mr. Castro turned left.^[22]Within seconds, Sgt. Robinson, who was apparently following Plaintiffs, activated his vehicle's emergency equipment to stop Plaintiffs.^[23]Mr. Castro immediately turned on his right turn signal and pulled to the side of the road.^[24]

After approaching the driver side window of Plaintiffs' car, Sgt. Robinson requested Mr. Castro's driver license and the car's registration.^[25]When Plaintiffs asked Sgt. Robinson why he had stopped them, he “responded only with the fact that Plaintiffs were being followed.”^[26]Sgt. Robinson then told Plaintiffs that he had observed their car swerving in the traffic lane and that Mr. Castro had failed to signal when changing lanes.^[27]However, the dash camera video from Sgt. Robinson's vehicle (“Video”) shows that Mr. Castro did not cross or touch the traffic lane boundaries and that Mr. Castro never changed lanes after turning left at the traffic light.^[28] Within approximately two minutes, two more Utah County Sheriff Deputies (collectively, “Doe Deputies”) arrived on scene.^[29]Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Robinson removed Plaintiffs from their car.^[30] After Plaintiffs moved to the front of Sgt. Robinson's vehicle, Mr. Castro was searched by one of the Doe Deputies, who asked Mr. Castro whether he was a terrorist or had any bombs, explosives, drugs, or weapons.^[31]Mr. Castro responded in the negative.^[32]A Utah County Sherriff K-9 unit then searched Plaintiffs' vehicle.^[33]Although the K-9 did not “indicate” on Plaintiffs' car, the Doe Deputies proceeded to search Plaintiffs' car for approximately seven minutes, including searching the driver side, passenger side, back interior, interior cargo area, and engine compartment.^[34] After the Doe Deputies conducted the Search, Sgt. Robinson issued to Mr. Castro a citation for an infraction for failure to use warning signals and a warning for failure to register Plaintiffs' car in Utah after establishing residency in Utah.^[35]Thereafter, the Payson City Prosecutor dismissed the infraction without prosecution.^[36] Plaintiffs are of Hispanic descent, and English is not their native language.^[37]Consequently, Plaintiffs understood little of what the Doe Deputies were asking them during the Stop and the Search.^[38]Plaintiffs are residents of Utah and Arizona.^[39]

Based upon those facts, Plaintiffs allege causes of action in their amended complaint for: (1) “Deprivation of Rights” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) “Deprivation of Rights” under Article I, Section 7 (due process) and Article I, Section 14 (unreasonable searches and seizures) of the Utah Constitution; and (3) “Civil Conspiracy” under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).^[40] Additionally, throughout the amended complaint, Plaintiffs contend that they were deprived of equal protection based upon Defendants' violation of an anti-bias policy promulgated by the Utah County Sheriff's Office (“Policy”).^[41]

Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, that: (1) Sgt. Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments; (2) Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege municipal liability for Utah County for their claims under both section 1983 and the Utah Constitution; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under section 1985(3); and (4) Plaintiffs' state constitutional claims should be dismissed.^[42]

Legal Standards

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “accept[s] as true the well[-]pleaded factual allegations [in the complaint] and then determine[s] if the plaintiff has provided ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”^[43]In addition to accepting a plaintiff's well-pleaded facts as true, the court “view[s] them in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of [the plaintiff].”^[44]“Rather than adjudging whether a claim is ‘improbable,' ‘[f]actual allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'”^[45]“[I]n examining a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), [the court] disregard[s] conclusory statements and look[s] only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.”^[46]

Analysis

Based upon the following analysis, the court: (I) grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim against Sgt. Robinson for violations of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (II) grants and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim against Sgt. Robinson for violations of the Fourth Amendment; (III) grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims against Utah County; (IV) grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' section 1985(3) claim; and (V) grants and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state constitutional claims.

I. The Court Grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 1983 Claim Against Sgt. Robinson for Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim against Sgt. Robinson for violations of the Equal Protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment because Sgt. Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from that claim. “Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”^[47]“Once an individual defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct.”^[48]The court “may address the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis in either order.”^[49]“If the plaintiff fails to carry either part of his two-part burden, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.”^[50]

Although qualified...