Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

OFFICER C. ARANAS, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 06-CV-1574 AWI SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DISMISSING

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document #22)

BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiff Phillip Sanders (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint. On June

19, 1007, Defendant Officer C. Aranas (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. On July 27,

2007, the court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

This order gave notice of the complaint’s pleading deficiencies. 

On August 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint

alleges violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. On September 10, 2007, Defendant

filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9 Cir. 1990). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal can be based on the failure to allege a th

cognizable legal theory or the failure to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. 

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9 Cir. 1984). In considering a th

motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in

the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's

favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under a

set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.,

534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but

whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on

the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’”

Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9 Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, th

236 (1974)). While detailed allegations are not required, the plaintiff must set forth “the

grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, -

- U.S. -- 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although

accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level . . . .” Id. at 1965 (citations omitted). 

ALLEGED FACTS

The amended complaint alleges that on or about June 6, 2006, Plaintiff noticed a police

car pull up in front of his house and Defendant get out. Defendant went toward Plaintiff’s

neighbor’s house, where Plaintiff lost view of him. 

The amended complaint alleges that after about five minutes, Plaintiff went out the back

door of his house. Plaintiff saw Defendant looking in a side garage door, which had been left

open. The amended complaint alleges that Defendant had his back to Plaintiff and his gun out. 

The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff then walked to the middle of the backyard, put his

hands out in plain view, and said in a loud voice, “officer officer Don’t Shot [sic.]”.

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 This section appears to be a response to the court’s prior order dismissing this action 1

with leave to amend. 

 The term “reasonable cause” was used in the original complaint.

2

3

The amended complaint alleges that Defendant asked whether Plaintiff was Phillip

Sanders. When Plaintiff said yes, Defendant told Plaintiff to get on the ground. Defendant then

handcuffed Plaintiff and searched him. The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was taken

to jail. The amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was released three days later “without ever

going to the court or D.A. reject.” 

The amended complaint alleges Defendant searched and arrested Plaintiff and searched

Plaintiff’s garage without probable cause.

The amended complaint contains a section entitled “Amendment Clarifications.” This 1

section alleges that Defendant was acting under color of state law, Defendant is being sued in his

individual and official capacity, and Defendant did not have probable cause for his actions. In 2

this section, Plaintiff also alleges that at the time of the incident, there was no probation or police

warrant outstanding, no criminal activity was taking place or had been committed, and “[n]o

probation conditions allowing search were signed and an officer enter property with gun drawn,

is a clearly all out custodial arrest.” The complaint alleges that “probation tried to violate me

behind this matter and stiffended [sic.] my probation conditions”.

DISCUSSION

A. Basis For Action

When dismissing the original complaint, the court requested that any amended complaint

state the statutory basis of this action. The amended complaint still does not specifically state

the statutory basis of this action. However, the amended complaint references the Fourth

Amendment and alleges that Defendant’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the

court presumes this action is being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When filing any

amended complaint, Plaintiff must confine his causes of action to a violation of the Fourth

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Amendment. 

B. Defendants to this Action

When dismissing the original complaint, the court noted that the complaint filed to state

whether Plaintiff is suing Defendant in his individual capacity or official capacity. In the

amended complaint, Plaintiff states he is suing Defendant in both his individual and official

capacity. Thus, this action will proceed on that basis. 

In his motion to dismiss, Defendant contends that it appears the amended complaint is

adding the Fresno Police Department as a Defendant, and the Fresno Police Department is not a

proper Defendant. The court has reviewed the amended complaint and amendment

clarifications. Nowhere do these documents state that the Fresno Police Department is an

additional Defendant. It appears that the Fresno Police Department has only been mentioned to

clarify that Plaintiff alleges Defendant was acting under color of state law and to show that

administrative claims about the events have been submitted to the Fresno Police Department. 

However, the court must agree that the amended complaint is less than clear. Because the

amended complaint must be dismissed for other reasons, Plaintiff should clarify in any amended

complaint whether only Defendant Officer C. Aranas is a Defendant or if the Fresno Police

Department is also a Defendant.

C. Fourth Amendment

The complaint alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The

Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Defendant

moves to dismiss the complaint because the amended complaint’s allegations are still vague. 

Defendant argues that it is still unclear whether Plaintiff was on probation at the time of the

incident. 

The amended complaint alleges that Defendant did not have probable cause for arresting

Plaintiff, searching Plaintiff, and searching Plaintiff’s garage. As explained in the court’s prior

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

order, normally, an arrest and/or search are lawful without a warrant if supported by probable

cause. However, as noted previously, in some circumstances, probable cause is not needed for

an officer to search and/or arrest an individual. For example, under California and Federal law,

probable cause is not required to arrest a parolee for a violation of parole, nor is a parole officer

required to personally effect the arrest of a parolee. See United States v. Butcher, 926 F.2d 811,

814 (9 Cir.1991). If search without a warrant is a condition of probation, the Fourth

th

Amendment authorizes warrantless searches if they are supported by reasonable suspicion. 

United States v. Knights 534 U.S. 112, 121 (2001). 

While the amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff never “signed” a probation condition

that allowed a search, the amended complaint’s references to “probation tried to violate” Plaintiff

and probation “stiffended (sic.) [Plaintiff’s] probation conditions” imply that Plaintiff was in fact

on probation. It is unclear if Plaintiff contends he was (1) not on probation, and thus any search

or arrest had to be accompanied by probably cause; (2) on probation but his probation conditions

did not include any search or seizure conditions; or (3) on probation and his probation conditions

included search or seizure conditions, but Plaintiff never agreed to these conditions. Because

these facts may lower the standard necessary for Defendant to have searched and/or arrested

Plaintiff, probably cause may not have been necessary. It is impossible to determine if the

amended complaint states a claim. 

The amended complaint must be dismissed. When dismissing a complaint, the Ninth

Circuit has stated that “leave to amend should be granted unless the district court determines that

the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Bly-Magee v.

California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9 Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); Chang v. th

Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9 Cir. (9 Cir. 1996). The court has already given Plaintiff notice th th

of the complaint’s pleading deficiencies once. However, in the interests of justice, the court

will give Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend the complaint. The court forewarns Plaintiff

that failure to file an amended complaint that sufficiently states a Fourth Amendment violation

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

will result in the dismissal of this action. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of this order’s

date of service; and

4. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that failure to file a Second Amended Complaint,

which states a Fourth Amendment violation, within thirty days will result in this

action’s dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 6