United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’, THE CITY OF CLOVIS,
THE CITY OF SANGER, KRISTINA HERSHBERGER, JESUS SANTILLAN,
CHANNON HIGH, ANGELA YAMBUPAH, RALPH SALAZAR, AND FRED
SANDERS, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
MENDEZ, UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
of the eleven Defendants in this case move to dismiss
portions of Plaintiff Desiree Martinez’s
(“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”) (Doc. #50). Plaintiff opposes the motion
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Court takes the facts alleged by Plaintiff as true for
purposes of this motion. Plaintiff was in a relationship with
Kyle Pennington (“KP”), an officer with the
Clovis Police Department (“CPD”). SAC
¶¶ 4, 16. Throughout the relationship, KP
physically and emotionally abused Plaintiff. Id.
¶ 16. On May 2, 2013, Plaintiff called the police to
report that KP had threatened to harm her. Id.
¶ 18(a). CPD officers Kristina Hershberger
(“Hershberger”) and Jesus Santillan
(“Santillan”) responded to Plaintiff’s
call. Id. The officers asked Plaintiff questions,
but did not separate KP and Plaintiff during the questioning.
Id. Hershberger and Santillan did not arrest KP.
Id. KP physically and emotionally abused Plaintiff
after Hershberger and Santillan left. Id. ¶
three weeks later, Plaintiff contacted the CPD to tell an
officer that KP was abusing her. Id. ¶ 18(c).
The officer did not arrest KP or tell Plaintiff about her
rights. Id. Eight days later, Plaintiff called the
CPD anonymously. Id. ¶ 18(f). A few days after
that, defendant Channon High (“High”) called and
informed KP that Plaintiff had called the CPD to report abuse
by KP. Id. ¶ 18(g). After High’s call to
KP, KP severely abused Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 18(h).
point, Plaintiff and KP moved from Clovis to Sanger.
Id. On June 4, 2013, a neighbor called 911 to report
that KP was abusing Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 18(i).
Officers Angela Yambupah (“Yambupah”) and Ralph
Salazar (“Salazar”) and Sgt. Fred Sanders
(“Sanders”) of the Sanger Police Department
(“SPD”) responded to the 911 calls. Id.
Plaintiff had “many obvious injuries.”
Id. The SPD officers did not separate Plaintiff from
KP to question Plaintiff about the abuse. Id.
Plaintiff, feeling intimidated, stated that she did not want
to press charges. Id. The officers left without
arresting KP. Id. KP beat and sexually assaulted
Plaintiff later that night. Id. Plaintiff contacted
both the CPD and SPD. Id. ¶ 18(j). An arrest
warrant and a restraining order were issued against KP on
June 5, 2013. Id. ¶ 18(j)-(m).
there was a restraining order requiring KP to stay away from
Plaintiff, KP continued to live with Plaintiff. Id.
¶ 18(n). Between June and August 2013, KP physically,
sexually, and emotionally abused Plaintiff. Id.
¶ 18(k)-(1). Plaintiff reported KP’s violations of
the restraining order to the CPD. Id. ¶ 18(m).
High and another unidentified records clerk for the CPD
alerted KP whenever Plaintiff called the CPD. Id.
When KP found out about Plaintiff’s calls to the CPD,
KP would physically abuse Plaintiff. Id. From June
through early September 2013, KP was never arrested for
violating the restraining order or abusing Plaintiff.
Id. ¶ 18(n). KP was finally arrested on
September 18, 2013. Id. ¶ 18(m). KP and
Plaintiff moved away from each other, but KP continued to
contact Plaintiff in violation of the restraining order.
Id. ¶ 18(n)-(o).
eventually charged with domestic violence, threats, false
imprisonment, violating a restraining order, and more.
Id. ¶ 18(j). A jury convicted KP of violating
the restraining order but were unable to reach a unanimous
verdict on the other charges. Id. ¶ 19. KP pled
guilty to one domestic violence charge to avoid a retrial.
sued KP, KP’s parents Kim and Connie Pennington, the
cities of Clovis and Sanger, and High, Hershberger,
Santillan, Yambupah, Salazar, and Sanders (Doc. #1).
Following the Court’s January 6, 2016 Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss,
Plaintiff filed her SAC (Doc. #44).
Clovis, Sanger, High, Hershberger, Santillan, Yambupah,
Salazar, and Sanders now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s
first and second causes of action (Doc. #50).
only substantive addition to Plaintiff’s complaint is
paragraph 22. That paragraph alleges, among other things,
that “Clovis and Sanger fail to require their police
officers to abide by the Federal Violence Against Women Act,
or the corresponding California laws.” SAC ¶ 22.
It also alleges “on information and belief” that
police officers in Clovis and Sanger are trained and
permitted to enforce domestic violence laws differently than
other laws. Id. Defendants argue that despite the
addition of paragraph 22 to Plaintiff’s complaint,
Plaintiff fails to allege equal protection violations against
all Defendants and fails to allege a due process claim
against Sanger. MTD at 5-7.
Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claims Against Clovis
allege a § 1983 claim against a city, a plaintiff must
state facts to show that the city had a custom or policy that
caused the plaintiff’s constitutional injury.
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y.C., 436
U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A “policy or custom” under
Monell is a “longstanding practice . . . which
constitutes the ‘standard operating procedure’ of
the local government entity.” Ulrich v. City &
Cty. of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984-85 (9th Cir.
2002). “[T]he complaint must allege the policy, as well
as its causal relationship ...