Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

DREW GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 

OFFICER J.J. FISHER; 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL T. 

NEWMAN; TEHAMA COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; TEHAMA 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

DEPUTY INVESTIGATOR ED 

MCCULLOUGH; KENNETH MILLER; 

and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02730 JAM CMK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MILLER’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kenneth 

Miller’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the seventh and ninth 

causes of action (Doc. #10) of Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) Drew 

Gardner’s complaint (Doc. #1). For the following reasons, 

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.1

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for February 11, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 8
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

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a 

Jeep Wrangler that had been reported stolen. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17. 

Upon seeing a police car, the driver of the Jeep abandoned the 

car and told Plaintiff to do the same. Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiff 

was apprehended and taken into custody at Tehama County Jail. 

Compl. ¶¶ 19, 25. During booking, the arresting officer reported 

confiscating a “clear white baggie with a white crystalline 

substance” - which tested positive for methamphetamine – from 

Plaintiff’s jacket. Compl. ¶ 26.

On January 3, 2014, Ed McCullough – a deputy investigator 

with the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department – was tasked with 

conducting an investigation of this incident. Compl. ¶ 30. 

McCullough interviewed Plaintiff, who told him that he was a 

passenger in the car and had been offered a ride by Charles Jacob 

Steele, whom “he had just met at a mutual friend’s house.” 

Compl. ¶ 32. Plaintiff informed McCullough that, prior to his 

arrest, they had stopped at a car dealership and a gas station, 

and that witnesses at both locations could confirm that he was 

not the driver of the stolen vehicle. Compl. ¶¶ 33-34. 

McCullough followed up on both of these leads, and spoke with a

witness at the car dealership. Compl. ¶ 34. The witness picked 

Plaintiff out of a photo line-up, and identified him as the 

passenger of the vehicle. Compl. ¶ 35. McCullough allegedly

“failed to alert anyone at the Tehama [County] District 

Attorney’s office, the Tehama County Jail, or the Shasta County 

Sheriff’s department” of these exculpatory findings. Compl. ¶ 

36.

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 8
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

On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff was charged with: (1) unlawful 

driving or taking of a vehicle; (2) receiving stolen property –

motor vehicle; (3) driving under the influence; (4) bringing 

contraband into the jail; (5) possession of a controlled 

substance; and (6) carrying a dirk or dagger. Compl. ¶ 38. 

Defendant Kenneth Miller was assigned to be his public defender. 

Compl. ¶ 41.

On January 8, 2014, McCullough resumed his investigation and 

visited the gas station at which Plaintiff claimed to have 

stopped before his arrest. Compl. ¶ 42. He obtained video 

surveillance from the date of the incident, and allegedly

observed that Plaintiff was the passenger in the vehicle. Compl. 

¶ 42. McCullough wrote up a report of his findings (“the 

McCullough Report”), but it is unclear when this report was filed 

with the Tehama County District Attorney’s Office. Compl. ¶ 45. 

Plaintiff alleges that it “failed to make its way to the Tehama 

County District Attorney’s Office” during the period that 

Defendant represented Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 48.

Between January 6, 2014 – when he was appointed as 

Plaintiff’s attorney – and February 25, 2014 – when he was fired

by Plaintiff – Defendant Miller allegedly “never once interviewed 

Plaintiff to obtain Plaintiff’s version of the facts nor 

conducted any investigation.” Compl. ¶ 47. On February 7, 2014, 

Plaintiff’s mother retained private counsel to represent 

Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 49. Plaintiff’s retained counsel conducted 

an investigation and allegedly discovered substantially the same 

exculpatory information which McCullough had learned through his 

official investigation. Compl. ¶¶ 50-53. On March 12, 2014, 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 8
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

Plaintiff’s retained counsel sent a letter summarizing its 

findings to the Tehama County District Attorney’s Office. Compl. 

¶ 54. That same day, the Tehama County District Attorney 

provided Plaintiff with a copy of the McCullough Report. Compl. 

¶ 55. On March 17, 2014, the three vehicle-related counts 

against Plaintiff were dropped. Compl. ¶ 56. Plaintiff remained 

in custody on the three booking-related pending charges. Compl. 

¶ 56.

On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff “persuaded Sargeant Baulkin at 

the Tehama County Jail to look at the booking video.” Compl. 

¶ 58. The video showed that Plaintiff was not wearing the jacket 

which allegedly contained the “baggie of meth” confiscated during 

booking. Compl. ¶ 58. Instead, the video showed that the 

arresting officer carried the jacket into the booking room. 

Compl. ¶ 58. On April 21, 2014, the remaining counts relating to 

Plaintiff’s booking were dismissed. Compl. ¶ 59. Plaintiff was 

released from custody that day. Compl. ¶ 59.

On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint in Tehama 

County Superior Court. On November 11, 2014, Defendants removed 

the matter to this Court. The Complaint includes nine causes of 

action. As noted above, only the seventh cause of action for 

negligent infliction of emotional distress and the ninth cause of 

action for professional negligence are brought against the moving 

defendant Kenneth Miller. The remaining causes of action are 

brought against individual officers and municipal police entities 

for their alleged role played in Plaintiff’s arrest and 

incarceration. 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 8
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

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice

Defendant Miller requests that the Court take judicial 

notice (Doc. #11) of the complaint filed in this action. The 

complaint is already part of the record in this case, and the 

request is denied as unnecessary.

B. Discussion

Defendant Miller argues that both causes of action brought 

against him – negligent infliction of emotional distress and 

professional negligence – must be dismissed because Plaintiff has 

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the essential 

element of causation. Mot. at 7. Specifically, Defendant Miller 

argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege that he would have 

spent less time in jail if Defendant had competently represented 

him. Mot. at 8. Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s inaction –

especially his failure to interview Plaintiff during the entirety 

of his representation – “resulted in additional jail time for 

Plaintiff.” Opp. at 3-4.

Causation is a necessary element of both negligent 

infliction of emotional distress and professional negligence. 

Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal. 

3d 583, 588 (1989); Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 

811, 821 (2011). Thus, to state a claim for these two causes of 

action, Plaintiff must allege that the harm would not have

occurred “but for” Defendant’s breach of his duty. In other 

words, Plaintiff must allege facts which give rise to a 

reasonable inference that he would have spent less time in jail 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 8
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

if Defendant had been reasonably competent in representing him.

Plaintiff was in custody from January 2, 2014 until April 

21, 2014, for a total of 110 days (Plaintiff’s calculation of 91 

days appears to be incorrect). Compl. ¶¶ 26, 59. Plaintiff’s 

release was the result of two discrete events. First, on March 

12, 2014, Plaintiff’s retained counsel obtained a copy of the 

exculpatory McCullough Report from the Tehama County District 

Attorney’s Office. Compl. ¶¶ 54-55. This led to the dismissal 

of the three vehicle-related counts against Plaintiff, on March 

17, 2014. Compl. ¶ 56. Second, on April 1, 2014, Plaintiff 

“persuaded Sargeant Baulkin at the Tehama County Jail to look at 

the booking video,” which showed that Plaintiff was not wearing 

the jacket which contained a “baggie of meth.” Compl. ¶ 58. 

Approximately three weeks later, the remaining counts “related to 

[the] booking of Plaintiff” were dismissed. Compl. ¶ 59.

Plaintiff has alleged that he was represented by Defendant 

Miller from January 6, 2014 until February 25, 2014 – roughly 

seven weeks. Compl. ¶¶ 41, 47. During these seven weeks, 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Miller “never once interviewed 

Plaintiff to obtain Plaintiff’s version of the facts nor 

conducted any investigation.” Compl. ¶ 47. The following 

inferences can reasonably be drawn from Plaintiff’s factual 

allegations: (1) if Defendant Miller had interviewed his client 

promptly, he would have learned that Plaintiff was not wearing 

the jacket at booking; (2) Defendant Miller would have relayed 

this information to the apparently-cooperative Sargeant Baulkin 

(or another equally helpful corrections officer), and would have 

been permitted to view the booking video; (3) the video would 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 6 of 8
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

7

have revealed that Plaintiff was not wearing the jacket at the 

time of booking, and the booking-related charges would have been 

dismissed well before April 21, 2014. Thus, even if the 

exculpatory McCullough Report did not surface until March 12, 

2014, Plaintiff would still have been released on March 17, 2014, 

when the only remaining counts – the three vehicle-related 

charges – were dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations are 

sufficient to establish that Defendant Miller’s failure to 

interview Plaintiff could have plausibly caused Plaintiff to 

spend more time in custody. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff “can only speculate that 

the district attorney’s office might have dropped the charges 

sooner had a more aggressive defense been initiated during Mr. 

Miller’s short representation.” Mot. at 9. However, in 

considering a motion to dismiss, the Court “must . . . draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Scheuer v. 

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by

Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 

319, 322 (1972). As noted above, Plaintiff’s factual allegations 

– and all favorable, reasonable inferences drawn from these 

allegations – “plausibly suggest” that Plaintiff is entitled to 

relief on his professional negligence and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress claims. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 

(9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101, 182 L. Ed. 2d 882 

(U.S. 2012). It is far from speculation to infer that, had 

Defendant promptly interviewed Plaintiff, the events leading to 

Plaintiff’s release would have unfolded exactly as they did in 

reality, albeit much sooner. As discussed above, this would have 

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 7 of 8
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

8

ensured Plaintiff’s release on March 17, 2014, as opposed to 

April 21, 2014.

Given the liberal standard required to be applied by the 

Court on a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded

the element of causation for both negligent infliction of 

emotional distress and professional negligence. As Defendant 

Miller has only challenged Plaintiff’s allegations with regard to 

the element of causation, his motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant

Miller’s motion to dismiss: 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02730-JAM-CMK Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 8 of 8