United States District Court, S.D. California
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 ...