Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00600/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00600-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN BROWN, II, an individual, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal 

corporation; et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS 

 On March 24, 2017, Plaintiff Melvin Brown, II (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint 

against the City of San Diego (“Defendant City”), Officer George Smith, Officer Radford 

Pajita, and Officer Cassandra Heil (“Defendant Officers”) (collectively, “Defendants”), 

alleging various causes of action related to an incident with police that occurred on 

November 24, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed their answer on April 19, 2017. (Doc. 

No. 4.) On July 21, 2017, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and requested 

that the Court, without converting Defendants’ motion into a summary judgment motion, 

exercise its discretion to consider video of the underlying incident taken from Defendant 

Officers’ body-worn cameras. (Doc. No. 10.) On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed his 

response in opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 16.) Defendants replied on September 11, 

2017. (Doc. No. 18.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG 

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

On September 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss certain parties and 

claims. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, the parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendant City 

and Defendant Officers Pajita and Heil, with prejudice, and to dismiss all causes of action 

except the first cause of action against Defendant Officer Smith for excessive force 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 15 at 2-3.) On September 5, 2017, the Court 

granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss for good cause shown and stated that the only 

remaining claim is the first cause of action against Defendant Officer Smith. (Doc. No. 17.) 

BACKGROUND1

 Shortly after midnight on November 24, 2016, Plaintiff had an argument with his 

fiancé and, after breaking a plate and putting some personal items in his backpack, left 

their apartment. (Doc. No. 3 at 3.) Plaintiff’s fiancé, Georgina Flores, called the San 

Diego Police Department, which reported Ms. Flores’s call as a 415 (disturbing the 

peace). (Id.) Defendant Officers Smith, Pajita, and Heil were dispatched to the scene, 

entered the apartment, and locked the door. (Id. at 4.) Each Defendant Officer was 

wearing a body-worn camera at the time. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was still nearby and saw the 

police cars arrive at the apartment. (Id. at 4.) Concerned, Plaintiff returned to the 

apartment to check on Ms. Flores. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff knocked on the apartment door, and Defendant Officer Smith 

“immediately drew a telescoping metal baton.” (Id.) Defendant Officers Smith and Pajita 

opened the door, and as Plaintiff started to comply with Officer Pajita’s instruction to 

remove his backpack, Officers Smith and Pajita grabbed Plaintiff and tried to wrestle him 

to the ground. (Id.) Defendant Officer Smith started beating Plaintiff “viciously and 

sadistically” with his metal telescoping baton. (Id.) Plaintiff was on the ground, “trying to 

protect himself,” but Defendant Officer Smith continued, hitting Plaintiff in the head, 

arms and legs. (Id.) Plaintiff was bleeding on his shin and head, and was transported to 

UCSD Medical Center for medical care. (Id.) He was later charged with assault with a 

                                                                

1

 The following factual allegations are found in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 3) 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG 

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

deadly weapon (Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1)), threatening to kill Ms. Flores (Cal. Penal 

Code § 422(a)), and resisting arrest (Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)). (Id. at 5.) 

 

DISCUSSION 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment on the 

pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of 

material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court applies the same standard 

to a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as it applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion 

to dismiss. United States v. In re Seizure of One Blue Nissan Skyline Auto., 683 F. Supp. 

2d 1087, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2010). The Court “must accept all factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 

Fleming, 581 F.3d at 925. 

When deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may consider 

materials that weren’t “physically attached to the complaint” if “the [materials’] 

authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies on them.” See 

Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013). 

II. ANALYSIS 

As an initial matter, the Court declines to consider the body-worn camera video 

evidence when deciding Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff asserts there is a “factual dispute as 

to what is shown on the videos” and contests the video evidence’s authenticity, stating that 

he does not, for example, know whether “this video is all the video in the case” or whether 

the video has been edited. (Doc. No. 16 at 5-6.) Thus, Defendants’ reliance on Lihosit v. 

Flam is misplaced. (Doc. No. 10-1 at 7.) In Lihosit, the court considered body-worn camera 

video evidence when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the video 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG 

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

evidence was “essential to a full understanding of the events underlying” the complaint 

and, importantly, the plaintiff did not dispute the video evidence’s authenticity. 2016 WL 

2865870, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2016); see also Covert v. City of San Diego, 2017 WL 

1094020, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (same). If Defendants wish to file a motion for 

summary judgment, they are free to do so after the record is more fully developed. At this 

point, however, the Court will not consider the video evidence.

Accepting, as it must, all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing 

those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court concludes 

there is a material fact issue whether Defendant Officer Smith used unreasonable force 

under the circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). In his 

complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Officer Smith used excessive force “by 

administering holds, strikes, forcing [Plaintiff] to the ground, and multiple full-force baton 

strikes to [Plaintiff’s] body and head with a telescoping metal baton, while [Plaintiff] was 

defenseless, compliant, and not resisting, in response to a disturbing the peace call. The 

force was used without warning, when [Plaintiff] was not an immediate threat to the safety 

of the officers or others, while [Plaintiff] was not resisting nor attempting to evade arrest 

by flight.” (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) Ruling on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

the Court takes these factual allegations as true. See Fleming, 581 F.3d at 925. Accordingly, 

the Court denies Defendants’ motion, but the parties may bring a motion for summary 

judgment when the record is more fully developed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2017 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:17-cv-00600-H-WVG Document 20 Filed 09/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4