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.

Russo Bailey v. City of El Cajon

July 9, 2012

RUSSO BAILEY;
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF EL CAJON, M. BEVAN #236, AND 25 UNKNOWNS; DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants City of El Cajon and M. Bevan. (ECF No. 9).

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff Russo Bailey, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a Complaint " against Defendants City of El Cajon, M. Bevan, and twenty-five unknown persons. (ECF No. 1).

On March 19, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 10). On March 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 11). On March 26, 2012, Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

On December 9, 2006, Defendant Bevan and fifteen unknown City of El Cajon police officers "injected a poison gas... into the confined rear section of Plaintiff's vehicle... while Plaintiff was within." (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff exited the vehicle, at which point the officers kidnapped and falsely imprisoned him. Defendant Bevan and unknown officers vandalized Plaintiff's property and attempted to murder him with the poison gas. Exposure to the poison gas contributed to Plaintiff's subsequent cancer diagnosis.

On May 22, 2011, El Cajon police officers Elders and Johns kidnapped and imprisoned Plaintiff and robbed Plaintiff of his vehicle. On July 27 and August 3, 2012, Plaintiff attempted to regain possession of his "toxic saturated" vehicle from the towing company, but the company informed him that the vehicle had been sold. Id. at 5-6.

The Complaint asserts six "causes of action" and six "claims for relief" against Defendants, generally alleging the following: assault, attempted voluntary manslaughter, attempted murder, kidnapping, vandalism, false arrest, false imprisonment, robbery, excessive force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to investigate, supervise or discipline officer misconduct. Plaintiff seeks "permanent injunctive relief that prevents the defendants in any way, reporting any and all information connected with this action or any illegal information suggesting bad history of the plaintiff to any other person or organization...." Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff seeks damages for the loss of his vehicle, costs of medical treatment, pain and suffering, along with punitive and compensatory damages.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides: "A pleading that states a claim for relief 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). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" but the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all "well-pleaded factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). However, a court is not "required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to ...


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.