Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00689-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

SIERRA ANDERSON, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-0689 - IEG (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO DISMISS 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 44]

vs.

DET. CORNELIUS, OFFICER WEBER,

OFFICER RINDER, SILVIA

WILLIAMSON,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss brought by Defendants. For the reasons

stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

The parties and the Court are well acquainted with Plaintiff’s allegations, so the Court will

not recite them here. In short, Plaintiff’s amended complaint arises from injuries she allegedly

sustained when Defendants removed her seven month old son from her custody, as well as injuries

she allegedly sustained as a result of the continued detention of her son.

Plaintiff filed suit in this Court in April 2010. [Doc. No. 1.] Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss in July 2010. After postponing its ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss pending

receipt of documents from state court dependency proceedings, the Court granted in part and

denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 41.] Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

on April 19, 2011. [Doc. No. 43.] Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss on April 29,

2011. [Doc. No. 44.] Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition.

Case 3:10-cv-00689-CAB-MDD Document 46 Filed 07/13/11 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

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests

the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v.

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court must accept all factual allegations pled in the

complaint as true, and must construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor

of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). 

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,

rather, it 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). 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). A court need not accept “legal

conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). In spite of the deference the

court is bound to pay to the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume that “the

[plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the . . .

laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State

Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

DISCUSSION

I. Federal Claims

Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims to the extent she asserts claims

based on an unconstitutional policy or custom, and to the extent she asserts a due process claim

based on the continued detention of her son. [See Defs.’ Mot. at 3-6.]

The Court agrees with Defendants that the County is no longer a Defendant in this action

and that, conclusory allegations aside, Plaintiff has not alleged enough facts to state a plausible

claim based on an unconstitutional policy or custom. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Court

Case 3:10-cv-00689-CAB-MDD Document 46 Filed 07/13/11 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

also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff cannot state a due process claim based on the continued

detention of her son, an issue the Court addressed in its March 29, 2011 Order. [See Doc. No. 41.] 

For the reasons stated herein, and for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 29, 2011 Order, the

Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all of Plaintiff’s federal claims except the due process

claim arising from the initial removal of her son on April 4, 2008.

II. State Law Claims

A. California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) Compliance 

Defendants maintain Plaintiff’s state law claims are subject to dismissal because she has

failed to allege compliance with the CTCA. Under the CTCA, a plaintiff may not maintain an

action for damages against a public entity or a public employee unless he or she timely files a

notice of tort claim. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945.4 & 950.2; Mangold v. California Pub.

Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.1995) (“The California Tort Claims Act requires, as a

condition precedent to suit against a public entity, the timely presentation of a written claim and

the rejection of the claim in whole or in part.”). A plaintiff’s failure to allege compliance with the

presentation requirement of the CTCA results in dismissal of the state law claim.

In this case, Plaintiff does not explicitly allege compliance with the CTCA in her amended

complaint. [See generally Am. Compl.] But Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes letters

indicating that Plainttiff submitted a written claim to the County of San Diego and that the claim

was rejected. [Id.] Defendants do not acknowledge those letters or attempt to explain why they are

insufficient to establish compliance with the CTCA. [See generally Defs.’ Mot.] The Court

therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion as it relates to CTCA compliance. That is not to say

Plaintiff has satsfied all requirements of the CTCA; the Court concludes only that Defendants have

not demonstrated otherwise in their motion to dismiss.

B. California Constitution, Article I, Section 7

Defendants also contend Plaintiff cannot state a claim under Article I, Section 7 of the

California Constitution because damages are not available for violations of that provision. In

support of their contention, Defendants cite Bonner v. City of Santa Ana, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1465

(1996).

Case 3:10-cv-00689-CAB-MDD Document 46 Filed 07/13/11 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

The California Supreme Court has articulated a framework for determining the existence of

a damages action based on a violation of a California Constitution. See Katzberg v. Regents of

University of California, 29 Cal. 4th 300, 317 (2002). Defendants do not attempt to explain why

damages are unwarranted under the Katzberg framework. [See generally Defs.’ Mot.]

Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, and given that there is an “adequate alternative

remedy for the harm alleged,” McClelland v. City of Modesto, 2009 WL 2941480, at *11 (E.D.

Cal. Sept. 10, 2009), the Court concludes Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under Article I,

Section 7 of the California Constitution. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claim for relief under the California Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all of Plaintiff’s federal claims

except the due process claim arising from the initial removal of her son on April 4, 2008.

2. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss as it relates to CTCA

compliance.

3. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claim for relief under the

California Constitution.

4. Defendants shall file an answer within 14 days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2011 

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-00689-CAB-MDD Document 46 Filed 07/13/11 Page 4 of 4