Franco v. City of San Diego

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S, SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S, OFFICER MONTOYA'S, AND DAVID NISLEIT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 6]

          HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, Officer Montoya, and David Nisleit move to dismiss Plaintiff Devonte Franco's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

         I. BACKGROUND^[1]

         Plaintiff alleges that, on November 8, 2017, he entered a laundromat to wash his clothes. Officers from the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) arrived at the laundromat and arrested another individual there. When SDPD officers searched the laundromat, they found a gun in the back room. Officer Montoya then handcuffed Plaintiff in connection with the gun and transported him to the police station. At the police station, two unidentified SDPD officers told Plaintiff they knew he was not connected with the gun but that they did not have permission to release him.

         SDPD charged Plaintiff with violation of Penal Code § 25400(c)(6). The next day, Plaintiff posted bail and was released from jail. Plaintiff brought his Complaint on January 19, 2019, alleging nine claims:

• Count 1 - False Arrest against Officer Montoya (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

• Count 2 - Excessive Force against Officer Montoya (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

• Count 3 - False Imprisonment against Officer Montoya (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

• Count 4 - Failure to Properly Screen and Hire against City, SDPD, and Nisleit (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

• Count 5 - Failure to Properly Train against City, SDPD, and Nisleit

• Count 6 - Failure to Properly Supervise and Discipline against City, SDPD, and Nisleit

• Count 7 - Monell Violation against City, SDPD, and Nisleit (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

• Count 8 - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against City, SDPD, and Officer Montoya

• Count 9 - Violation of Civil Code § 52.1 against City, SDPD, and Officer Montoya

         II. DISCUSSION

         On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept the Complaint's allegations as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009). To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff's Complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Defendants move to dismiss two parties from this action, SDPD and David Nisleit, and move to ...