McClellan v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff's Office

GREGORY McCLELLAN, Plaintiff, v. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: June 2, 2014

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF STATES A

COGNIZABLE FOURTH AMENDMENT

CLAIM AND DISMISSING OTHER

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

ECF No. 21

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Gregory McClellan ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Prior to the Court screening Plaintiff's action, Plaintiff filed First and Second Amended Complaints. (ECF No. 8, 11.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11, 13), dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend (ECF No. 12). The Court screened Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, issued findings and recommendations for Plaintiff to proceed on his one cognizable claim, and dismissed Plaintiff's other claims. (ECF No. 14.) The Courtvacated the findings and recommendations after Plaintiff clarified several of his claims. (ECF Nos. 17-19.) Plaintiff was given leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 21.)

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff names the following individuals and entities as defendants: 1) Donny Youngblood, Kern County Sheriff, 2) Kern County Sheriff's Office, 3) William G. Hakker, Deputy Sheriff in Kern County, 4) William G. Smallwood, Deputy Sheriff in Kern County, 5) S. Lozano, Parole Agent I in Bakersfield, California and employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), 6) Louis Wood, Officer with Bakersfield Police Department, 7) Kenneth Perkins, Officer with Bakersfield Police Department, 8) T. Rodriguez, Deputy Officer at Kern County Jail Lerdo Facility, 9) Jane and John Does 1-7, Deputies/Officers at Kern County Jail Lerdo Facility, 10) Joel Lueck, Deputy Public Defender at Kern County Public Defender's Office, and 11) Deputy John Doe Contreras with the Kern County Sheriff's Office.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for assault and battery, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional stress, abuse of process, punishment without due process of law, and loss of familial association.

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

1. Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins slammed Plaintiff into the ground when arresting Plaintiff on August 17, 2009. (Am. Compl. at 3.) Defendant Wood and Perks twisted Plaintiff's arms behind his back and placed their knees on his back. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff knelt on the ground and Defendant Lozano tackled him. (Id.)

2. Defendants Youngblood, Hakker, Smallwood, and Lueck subjected Plaintiff to malicious prosecution. (Am. Compl. at 5-6.) Defendants Youngblood, Hakker, and Smallwood arrested Plaintiff without probable cause. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Lueck failed to properlyadvocate for Plaintiff's innocence during his criminal hearings. (Id. at 6.)

3. Defendants Youngblood, Hakker, and Smallwood subjected Plaintiff to emotional distress by arresting Plaintiff without probable cause. (Am. Compl. at 8.)

4. Defendants Youngblood, and Hakker, and Smallwood subjected Plaintiff to an abuse of process under the Restatement of Torts. (Am. Compl. at 9.)

5. Defendants Jane Doe, John Doe, Youngblood and Contreras punished Plaintiff without due process of law by incarcerating him at Wasco State Prison even though he had not been given a prison sentence. (Am. Compl. at 10, 11.)

6. Defendant Youngblood, Hakker, Smallwood, and Lueck denied Plaintiff the ability to associate with his family by incarcerating him without any probable cause. (Am. Compl. at 12.)

Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief, $4,950,000 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

III. ANALYSIS

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

42 U.S.C. § 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). § 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method forvindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

C. Fourth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins used unnecessary force when arresting Plaintiff on August 17, 2009.

The Fourth Amendment protects an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Encompassed within the term "unreasonable seizure" is the right to be free from excessive force and protection from "unreasonable intrusions on one's bodily integrity." Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2001). To state a Fourth Amendment claim, a plaintiff must show that the amount of force used was unreasonable or that the manner in which the arrest was effectuated was an unlawful intrusion into her bodily integrity. Gregory v. County of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2008); Fontana, 262 F.3d at 879. Determining the "reasonableness" of a particular action "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine the reasonableness of the use of force, the Court first must evaluate "the type and amount of force inflicted." Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must then consider the importance of the government interests atstake by evaluating: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). Finally, the Court must balance the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government's need for that intrusion. Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 2000) (judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), by County of Humboldt v. Headwaters Forest Defense, 534 U.S. 801 (2001)) (judgment reaffirmed after remand by Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins arrested him for a parole violation based on Plaintiff's failure to update his address as he, a registered sex offender, was required to do. During the arrest process, Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins pushed Plaintiff's face into the pavement even though Plaintiff knelt on the ground and submitted to the arrest and even though his crime, failing to update his address, was not severe or violent. He did not resist in any way or pose any immediate threat to Defendants. Taking Plaintiff's allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins.

D. Malicious Prosecution

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Youngblood, Hakker, Smallwood, and Lueck subjected him to malicious prosecution.

To state a Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege the elements of a state law malicious prosecution claim and establish that theprosecution was conducted for the purpose of denying the plaintiff a specific constitutional right. Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004); Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). Under California law, to state a claim for malicious prosecution, Plaintiff must show that the proceeding was (1) commenced by or at the direction of the defendant, (2) pursued to a legal termination favorable to plaintiff, (3) brought without probable cause, and (4) initiated with malice. Womack v. Cnty. of Amador, 551 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1031 (E.D.Cal. 2008); Sheldon...