United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DBTRICT JUDGE
Jesus Betanzo Basilio (“Plaintiff”) sued the City
of Fairfield (“the City”), the Fairfield Police
Department (“FPD”), and the FPD Police Chief Walt
Tibbet (“Tibbet”) (collectively
“Defendants”) for civil rights and state law
violations arising out of the arrest and detention of
Plaintiff by FPD officers. Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”), ECF No. 28. Defendants move to dismiss
the first four claims in Plaintiff's SAC. ECF No. 30.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 32.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Court takes the facts alleged by Plaintiff as true for
purposes of this motion.
officers arrested Plaintiff, a Mexican-American male and a
minor at the time, at his home in February 2014. SAC ¶
15. The officers approached Plaintiff and yelled at him to
“get on the floor.” Id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff complied with the officers' requests.
Id. The officers slammed their knees into
Plaintiff's neck, shoulder, and face. Id. Some
of the officers kicked Plaintiff in the temple. Id.
Plaintiff did not resist arrest as the officers kicked him.
officer searched Plaintiff and forcefully pulled on
Plaintiff's testicles. Id. ¶ 19. The
officer placed Plaintiff in the back of his patrol car.
Id. While in the patrol car, Plaintiff told officers
he did not feel well and his head hurt. Id. ¶
officers took Plaintiff to the police station and into an
interrogation room. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff told
police officers his head and shoulder hurt, he needed
aspirin, and needed to go the hospital. Id. ¶
26. The officers did not take Plaintiff to the hospital and
left him in the room for two hours. Id. Plaintiff
fainted in the interrogation room. Id.
“long wait, ” two officers entered the room to
ask Plaintiff about a suspect in a shooting. Id.
¶ 27. Plaintiff told the officers he “had no gang
relations.” Id. Plaintiff spent four hours in
the interrogation room, after which officers took him to a
hospital. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30. Plaintiff's
SAC contains six claims for relief: (1) excessive force under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) denial of medical care under
§ 1983, (3) denial of medical care under California
Government Code § 845.6, (4) violation of the Bane Act,
(5) battery, and (6) false imprisonment. Id. at 1.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's first through
fourth claims. Mot. at 4-12.
Dismissal of Fairfield Police Department
in this district have consistently held that subdivisions of
a defendant city, such as a police department, are
unnecessary and redundant defendants. Brouwer v. City of
Manteca, 2008 WL 2825099, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21,
2008); Herrera v. City of Sacramento, 2013 WL
3992497, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013). The Court therefore
dismisses the FPD with prejudice given that the City has been
named as a defendant in this case. The Court notes that
Plaintiff has not named or served any individual officers;
Tibbet and the City are the only defendants.
Request for Judicial Notice
Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 30-1, is denied with the
exception that the Court recognizes the existence of a jury
verdict and the two referenced orders filed in the Hall
v. City of Fairfield case.
First Claim for Relief: Excessive Force
brings his first cause of action for excessive force under
the Fourth Amendment. SAC at 8. Defendants argue the Court
should dismiss the excessive force claim as brought against
Tibbet and the City.
§ 1983 Excessive Force Claim Against Tibbet
supervisory official can be found liable in his individual
capacity if there is a sufficient nexus between his own
conduct and the constitutional violations committed by
subordinates.” Johnson v. City of Vallejo, 99
F.Supp.3d 1212, 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “In a section
1983 claim, a supervisor is liable for the acts of his
subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed
the violations, or knew of the violations of subordinates and
failed to act to prevent them.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
argue “Plaintiff's SAC adds no facts to cure the
defects in his prior complaint, and his factually
unsupported, vague conclusions are insufficient to withstand
dismissal of his supervisory liability claim against Chief
Tibbet.” Mot. at 5.
responds that “Defendants fail to acknowledge . . .
paragraphs 41 through 48 of the SAC . . . which add
numerous facts to support Plaintiff's claims for failure
to train.” Opp'n at 5. Paragraph 43 of the SAC
states that Tibbet failed to (1) discipline officers
following previous violations of constitutional rights of
suspects, and (2) “adopt policies regarding obtaining
medical care for detainees who complain of serious
injuries.” SAC ¶ 43.
again fails to support his allegations against Tibbet with
any facts. The dearth of underlying facts to support
Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that Tibbet failed to
discipline officers or implement certain policies suggests
that these allegations are mere speculation. Given the
absence of such facts, the Court grants Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first claim as brought
against Tibbet. The Court finds that Plaintiff has been given
enough opportunities to properly ...