Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01264-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

OFFICER RUIZ, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1264 OWW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED

COMPLAINT IN PART WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND AND DENYING IN PART

WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 26)

Plaintiff Phillip Sanders, proceeding in pro per, has filed

an Amended Complaint. Defendants are Fresno Police Department

Officers Ignacio Ruiz and Mark Bishop.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Amended

Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Alternatively, Defendants move for a more definite

statement.

Plaintiff did not file a written opposition to the motion

and did not appear at the hearing on August 6, 2007.

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

2

The Amended Complaint alleges that each defendant is an

officer of the Fresno Police Department and that "defendants were

acting outside the policies of the Fresno Police Department". 

With regard to Officer Ruiz, the Amended Complaint alleges:

7. Plaintiff alleges that on or about May

6th, 2006, Officer Ruiz followed Plaintiff

home, questioned the plaintiff, searched the

plaintiff's vehicle and the plaintiff, and

arrested the plaintiff without reasonable

cause.

8. Plaintiff alleges the following incidents

in this matter:

Officer Ruiz followed plaintiff to

his house at 347 W. Almy, Fresno,

CA, 93706. As plaintiff pulled

into his driveway Officer Ruiz

flashed his lights to stop hte

plaintiff ... Officer Ruiz ask

[sic] the plaintiff if he was on

probation and the plaintiff

responded 'yes'. Officer Ruiz

order [sic] plaintiff to step out

of the car and place his hands on

the car. Plaintiff obey [sic] the

officer's orders. Without

informing the plaintiff of his

reasons, Officer Ruiz began to

search the plaintiff and placed him

under arrest by placing handcuffs

on the plaintiff. Officer Ruiz

asked the plaintiff if he carried

any drugs or weapons on him. The

plaintiff replied 'no'. Officer

Ruiz then threatened the plaintiff

that if he did not tell him that he

had drugs on him he will go to

prison for a long time after he

takes him to the hospital for a

drug test, and after he impounds

the plaintiff's girlfriend's car. 

The plaintiff replied that he did

not have any drugs and that he was

not using drugs. Plaintiff also

told Officer Ruiz that he is

willing to go to the hospital to be

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

3

tested, and requested that his

girlfriend's car not to be

impounded.

Officer Ruiz then continued his

arrest by placing plaintiff in the

back of the police car. Without

asking the plaintiff and without

reasonable cause or 'plain view',

the officer searched the inside and

the trunk of the plaintiff's car. 

After Officer Ruiz found nothing,

he took the plaintiff to the Fresno

County Jail. There, the plaintiff

was booked and uninformed of the

reasonable cause of the search and

arrest. Plaintiff remained in jail

for three (3) day [sic] from May

7th - 9th, 2006. On his release he

received no information regarding

the cause of his arrest and search. 

With regard to Officer Bishop, the Amended Complaint alleges:

13. On December 3rd, 2005, while sitting at

the bus stop on Martin Luther King Street,

off of North Street, ... Officer Bishop

pulled over, questioned, searched, and

arrested the plaintiff without reasonable

cause.

14. Plaintiff alleges the following incident

[sic] in this matter:

While coming from the grocery

store, the plaintiff was waiting at

the bus stop. While sitting at the

bus stop around 8:30 pm, Officer

Bishop pulled over and approached

the plaintiff. Officer questioned

the plaintiff if he was on

probation. Plaintiff replied

'yes'. Officer Bishop then asked

him to stand and place hands on the

police car. Officer Bishop then

ask [sic] the reason for his

probation. The plaintiff replied

that that information is alread

[sic] available to him and that

Officer Bishop was already aware of

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

4

the plaintiff probation [sic]

reasons. At this point the officer

had not arrested the plaintiff. 

Officer Bishop searched him in

detail without informing the

plaintiff of his reasonable cause

... Officer Bishop told the

plaintiff that he is now placing

him under arrest, but he did not

read him his rights or state the

reasonable cause of the arrest. 

The plaintiff requested for Officer

Bishop to contact his probation

officer and asked if he could speak

to a lawyer. Officer Bishop

responded by informing the

plaintiff that he doesn't need a

lawyer and to just talk to him. 

Officer then place [sic] plaintiff

in the back of his police car and

drove plaintiff to the Fresno

County Jail. Plaintiff remained in

the jail without being informed of

reasonable cause for four (4) days. 

On the 4th day Phillip Sanders was

released without being informed of

the reasonable cause of his arrest.

A. Governing Standards.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the

sufficiency of the complaint. Novarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729,

732 (9 Cir.2001). Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is th

appropriate only where “it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-

46 (1957). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) where the

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or where the complaint

presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential

facts under that theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds,

Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9 Cir.1984). In reviewing a motion to th

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

5

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of

all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from

them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9 Cir.2002). The court th

must construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally in

determining whether a claim has been stated. Ortez v. 

Washington County, State of Or., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9 Cir. th

1996); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9 Cir. 1987). th

However, legal conclusions need not be taken as true merely

because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Ileto

v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9 Cir.2003). Immunities th

and other affirmative defenses may be upheld on a motion to

dismiss only when they are established on the face of the

complaint. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th

Cir.1999); Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th

Cir. 1980) When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may

consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached

to the complaint, documents relied upon but not attached to the

complaint when authenticity is not contested, and matters of

which the court takes judicial notice. Parrino v. FHP, Inc, 146

F.3d 699, 705-706 (9 Cir.1988). th

B. Capacity.

Defendants, noting that the City of Fresno is not named as a

defendant and that the Amended Complaint alleges that they were

acting "outside the policies" of the Fresno Police Department,

assert that it is unclear whether plaintiff is making allegations

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

6

against them in their individual or official capacities.

Although it is inferrable that the officers are sued in

their individual capacities, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND to specify that Defendants are so sued.

B. Alleged Incidents are Unrelated.

Defendants assert that the Amended Complaint fails to show

any correlation or relevance between the two events, which

occurred approximately five months apart. Defendants contends

that allowing these two incidents to be combined will be

prejudicial to defendants and will create confusion of the

issues. Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint "should be

dismissed as the relation of these two unrelated incidents is

vague and ambiguous." Alternatively, they argue that Plaintiff

should be required to submit a more definite statement.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The ground

asserted is not relevant to a failure to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6) and the allegations are not vague and ambiguous. 

C. Failure to State a Claim Against Officers Ruiz and

Bishop. 

Defendants argue that the allegations of the Amended

Complaint, with the repeated reference to "reasonable cause",

establishes that Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which

relief can be granted for violation of the Fourth Amendment,

which requires "probable cause." 

Defendant cites Samson v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 126

S.Ct. 2193 (2006), wherein the Supreme Court held that "the

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

7

Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from

conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee." Id. at 2202. 

Defendant recognizes that Samson involved a parole search and

that this case involves a probation search, but asserts that the

Ninth Circuit has consistently found no constitutional difference

between probation and parole for purposes of the Fourth

Amendment, citing Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1083 n.9 (9th

Cir.2005). Defendant asserts:

Plaintiff failed to provide his probation

terms in his Complaint [sic], and whether a

condition of his probation included a consent

to warrantless search provisions, whether he

was in violation of those terms, and whether

there was a probation hold placed on him. 

This vital information could assist in

setting forth the correct standard for this

case. 

Given this vague allegation and inaccurate

standard under the Fourth Amendment,

defendants request that this claim be

dismissed as to Officer Ruiz [and Officer

Bishop]. In the alternative, defendants move

for a more definite statement as to

plaintiff's probation terms at the time of

the alleged incident.

At the hearing, Defendants conceded that dismissal on this

ground should be with leave to amend so that Plaintiff can allege

whether or not the terms of his probation included the

requirement that he submit to warrantless searches. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground is GRANTED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND.

D. Qualified Immunity.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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

Plaintiff is advised that he is responsible to comply with 1

the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any court orders.

Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions,

including the sanction of dismissal.

8

immunity from liability because "from the facts as alleged [each

Defendant] had a legal right to search plaintiff who admitted he

was on probation". 

Because leave to amend is granted to allow Plaintiff to

allege whether the terms of his probation included the

requirement that he submit to warrantless searches, dismissal of

the Amended Complaint on this ground is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is

GRANTED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint in

accordance with this Order within 10 days of the filing date of

this Order. Failure to timely comply will result in the

dismissal of this action.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01264-OWW -GSA Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 Page 8 of 8