Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. County of San Diego

September 29, 2009

RAHEEM JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND DOES 1-20, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Second Claim of the First Amended Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"), filed by Defendant County of San Diego. (Doc. # 10).

I. Background

On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 9).

A. Allegations of the First Amended Complaint

On January 22, 2007, Plaintiff "was arrested and booked into the County Jail" "located... in downtown San Diego." (Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 6-7). "As part of the intake procedure," Plaintiff "was taken into a room where he was given jail clothes. When [Plaintiff] put the clothes on, he realized that the pants did not fit at all." (Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 7-8). Plaintiff "then returned to the jail employee who had given him the clothes and respectfully asked if he could exchange the pants for a functional pair. The jail employee's response was verbally abusive. He mocked [Plaintiff] with foul language. Other jail employees came over and joined in the verbal abuse."

(Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 9-10). Plaintiff "attempted to calm the situation down by saying he would make do with what he was given. Jail employees then began to punch and kick [Plaintiff].... [Plaintiff] did not fight back. The beating was so severe that the jail employees fractured the orbital bone of [Plaintiff]'s eye." (Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 11-12). As a result of the beating, "Plaintiff suffered physical pain, suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of quality of life, and medical expenses." (Doc. # 9 ¶ 14). "These employees of the County of San Diego acted in concert to inflict the beating upon [Plaintiff], but even more, not one of these Doe defendants had the training or adequate supervision to either stop the abuse or initiate an investigation after the fact." (Doc. # 9 ¶ 15).

The First Amended Complaint contains two claims. The First Claim seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful search and seizure and excessive force in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 16-20). The Second Claim also seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that:

Defendant County of San Diego, through its Sheriff's Dept, has unlawful policies, customs and habits of improper and inadequate hiring, training, retention, discipline and supervision of its officers, including the individual Defendants named herein, legally causing the constitutional deprivations, injuries and damages alleged in the First Cause of Action....

Further,... Defendant County of San Diego, through its Sheriff's Dept, has an unlawful policy, custom or habit of permitting or condoning the unnecessary and unjustified use of force by officers, including Does 1-20, and of permitting or condoning attitude arrests and/or acts of unreasonable force related thereto by its officers, including the individual Defendant[s] named herein. Defendant County of San Diego has a further unlawful policy, custom and habit of inadequate training, supervision and disciplining of errant officers....

Defendant County of San Diego has a further unlawful custom, policy and habit of permitting or condoning unlawful detention, arrest, booking and incarceration procedures and practices by its officers. Said unlawful policies, customs and habits proximately caused the constitutional deprivations, injuries and damages alleged in the First Cause of Action. (Doc. # 9 ¶¶ 22-24). The First Amended Complaint requests compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. # 9 at 5).

B. Motion to Dismiss

On August 6, 2009, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Claim of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 10). Defendant contends that the allegations of the Second Claim are too conclusory to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). (Doc. # 10 at 2-5). Defendant also contends that the Second Claim fails because the First Amended Complaint does not allege that an authorized county policy-maker adopted a deliberately indifferent policy that caused a constitutional violation. (Doc. # 10 at 5-6).

On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. (Doc. # 11). Plaintiff contends that the Second Claim adequately states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff states: "[Plaintiff] is prepared to 'bolster' the pleadings with additional factual allegations, and he asks for leave to amend should the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.