Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02461/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOSE VILLALOBOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02461 WBS KJN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Jose Villalobos filed this action against 

defendants City of Vallejo and Does 1 through 10 alleging various 

federal and state law claims arising from the wrongful detention 

of plaintiff. Before the court is defendant City of Vallejo’s 

motion to dismiss. (Mot. (Docket No. 5).)

I. Relevant Allegations

Villalobos traveled with his family to St. Catherine of 

Siena Catholic Church, located in Vallejo, California, to attend 

a religious service. (Compl. ¶ 15 (Docket No. 1).) Plaintiff 

then went to the bathroom around the time the evening service was 

Case 2:19-cv-02461-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

starting. (Id. ¶ 16.) As plaintiff went to open the door to the 

bathroom, a City of Vallejo police officer who mistook plaintiff 

for another person snatched his arm behind him and twisted it 

behind his back. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.) Plaintiff is blind in one 

eye. (Id. ¶ 18.) As plaintiff turned to see who was attacking 

him, plaintiff was struck in the cheek and wrestled to the floor. 

(Id. ¶ 18.) The officers were not wearing police uniforms. (Id.

¶ 17.) Believing he was being robbed, Mr. Villalobos cried, 

“What’s going on? I’m in church! I don’t have any money!” (Id.

¶ 19.) Mr. Villalobos also stated that he had just had surgery 

on his shoulder and that he was in church “to pray and relax.” 

(Id.) It was not until the officers had seated plaintiff in a 

patrol car that they realized he was the wrong person. (Id. ¶ 

20.) 

Plaintiff filed suit alleging the following four causes 

of action: (1) deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983; (2) battery and (3) negligence under California state 

law; and (4) violation of California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act 

(“Tom Bane Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. The City of Vallejo now 

moves to dismiss only plaintiff’s claim under the Tom Bane Act.

II. Legal Standard

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the inquiry before the court 

is whether, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true 

and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, 

the plaintiff has stated a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The 

plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ 

but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant 

Case 2:19-cv-02461-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

has acted unlawfully.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 

the misconduct alleged.” Id.

III. Discussion

To state a claim under the Tom Bane Act, plaintiff must 

allege that the involved officers acted with specific intent to 

deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Reese v. Cty. of 

Sacramento (Reese II), 888 F.3d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018). “[A] 

mere intention to use force that the jury ultimately finds 

unreasonable -- that is, general criminal intent -- is 

insufficient.” Id. (citing United States v. Reese (Reese I), 2 

F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. 1993)). “Rather, the jury must find that 

the defendants ‘intended not only the force, but its 

unreasonableness, its character as ‘more than necessary under the 

circumstances.’” Id. (citing Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). “[I]t is 

not necessary for the defendants to have been ‘thinking in 

constitutional or legal terms at the time of the incidents.’” Id.

at 1045 (quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). Instead, “‘a reckless 

disregard for a person's constitutional rights is evidence of a 

specific intent to deprive that person of those rights.’” Id.

(quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885).

Defendant asks the court to infer that Mr. Villalobos 

resisted arrest and that the force exerted was therefore 

reasonable. (Mot. at 8 (“The Court may reasonably infer that 

Plaintiff physically resisted the officers.”).) The court cannot 

do so. At this stage, the court must make all inferences in 

favor of plaintiff. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint 

Case 2:19-cv-02461-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

alleges that plaintiff “turned to see who was attacking him.” 

(Compl. ¶ 18.) In response to plaintiff turning, the officer 

struck plaintiff and wrestled him to the floor. (Id.) Because 

the complaint alleges no other action by plaintiff, and because 

the court may infer that plaintiff’s movement was limited by both 

his partial blindness and his shoulder injury, the officers’ 

response was plausibly “more than necessary under the 

circumstances” and therefore unreasonable. See Reese II, 888 

F.3d at 1043 (quoting Reese I, 2 F.3d at 885). 

Further, because officers continued to exert that force 

after plaintiff allegedly saw uninformed men, cried that he had 

no money, and informed the officers of his injured shoulder, the 

allegations in the complaint plausibly allege the officers 

intended to exert that unreasonable force or at least acted with 

a reckless disregard for plaintiff’s fourth amendment right to be 

free from excessive force. (See Compl. ¶¶ 17-20, 47; id.) The 

complaint therefore plausibly states a claim under the Tom Bane 

Act and the court will not dismiss this claim. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Docket No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: March 31, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02461-WBS-KJN Document 11 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 4