The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
This is a civil rights case arising out of plaintiff Irene
Hoener's arrest on March 1, 2002. Plaintiff filed this complaint
in proper. The Court has given plaintiff several opportunities to
amend her complaint in response to motions to dismiss filed by
defendants. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint alleges causes of
action against the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's
Deputy Dave Iverson, and Sonoma County District Attorney's Office
Chief Investigator Michael Griffith (collectively "the Sonoma
defendants"), and the City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Detective
Karen Westling, and Santa Rosa Detective John Snetsinger
(collectively "the Santa Rosa defendants"). Now before the Court
are two motions for summary judgment, one from each set of
On March 1, 2002, plaintiff went to pick up her children from
their school. When she arrived at the school, she was informed that her ex-husband,
Sonoma County Sergeant Edward Hoener, had already picked up their
children. Plaintiff and Mr. Hoener shared visitation rights to
their children, and pursuant to a court visitation order,
plaintiff had custody of the children on March 1, 2002. Mr.
Hoener, however, asserts that because he feared for the
well-being of his children, he withheld the children from their
scheduled visit with plaintiff. Plaintiff was unaware that Mr.
Hoener had taken this action, and when plaintiff discovered that
her husband had taken the children, she called the Sonoma County
Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department informed her that
they would send an officer to the school. Rather than wait for
the officer, plaintiff went to the home of Mr. Hoener and his new
wife, Evane Hoener.
When plaintiff arrived at her ex-husband's home, a dispute over
the children and the visitation rights ensued. The dispute led to
a physical altercation between plaintiff and her ex-husband
Plaintiff called the Sheriff's Department to report the incident.
Mr. Hoener also called the Sheriff's Department and requested
that officers be sent to his home "Code 3." Evane Hoener
videotaped portions of the incident.
Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Dave Iverson was the first to
arrive on the scene. Immediately upon arriving at the scene,
Iverson handcuffed plaintiff and placed her in the back of his
patrol car. Plaintiff was later arrested for spousal abuse and
brought to the Sheriff's Department by Deputy Brad O'Bryan.
Because this incident involved Mr. Hoener, a member of the
Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, pursuant to a County
protocol,*fn1 the Santa Rosa Police Department was brought
in to investigate the incident. Santa Rosa Police Department
detectives Karen Westling and John Snetsinger came to the Sonoma
County Sheriff's Department where plaintiff was being detained.
Westling and Snetsinger photographed plaintiff's injuries.
Plaintiff asserts that her requests from medical attention were
ignored. She claims that she was confined to an interrogation
room, one arm handcuffed to a chair, for seven hours. Plaintiff was tried by a jury and convicted of misdemeanor
spousal abuse on November 1, 2002 based on this incident. Her
conviction was later affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff originally brought this lawsuit on February 7, 2003.
In response to defendants' first motion to dismiss, this Court
dismissed some of plaintiff's claims and provided plaintiff leave
to amend other claims in accordance with express instructions.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 23, 2003.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the Court dismissed some
of plaintiff's claims and provided plaintiff another opportunity
to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint
on October 29, 2003.
On January 20, 2004, the Sonoma defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. On January 22, 2004, the Santa Rosa defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing for both summary
judgment motions was scheduled for April 2, 2004. On March 10,
2004, plaintiff moved for a continuance of the summary judgment
motions. The Court granted plaintiff's motion, and scheduled the
hearing on the summary judgment motions for July 2, 2004. On May
26, 2004, plaintiff moved for another continuance in order to
complete certain discovery. The Court held a telephone conference
on May 28, 2004 with all parties to discuss plaintiff's motion.
The Court granted plaintiff's motion to take depositions and
continued the hearing until July 30, 2004 in order to provide
plaintiff with ample time to complete discovery. The Court
discussed the dates and location for plaintiff to take these
depositions. On June 8, 2004, plaintiff informed the Court that
she no longer intended to take the scheduled depositions.
On June 16, 2004, plaintiff timely filed a memorandum in
opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Defendants timely filed reply memoranda on July 23, 2004.
Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R. Civ.
P. 56(c). An issue is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient
evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find
for the nonmoving party, and a dispute is "material" only if it
could affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). A
principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure "is to
isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). "Where the ...