Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449-8/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

MAURO ALEJANDRO, III, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JASON WILLIAMSON #876, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-449 OWW/LJO

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Docs. 17 &

24)

Plaintiff Mauro Alejandro, III, a state prisoner proceeding

in pro per, has filed an Amended Complaint. Defendants are

Bakersfield Police Department Officers Jason Williamson #876 and

Aaron Springer #973 and California Highway Patrol Officers Matt

Ashe #16947 and Dan Fallas #14770. 

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was a suspect to a

crime committed in Bakersfield on November 20, 2005; that

Defendant Williamson, while acting under color of law and in a

Bakersfield Police Department uniform, confronted Plaintiff in an

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 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

2

alley from 20 feet away, with his firearm drawn, ordering

Plaintiff to get down; that Plaintiff immediately got down on the

ground; that Williamson holstered his firearm, displayed his

collapsible baton, stated "How dare you ram me", and struck

Plaintiff with the baton; that plaintiff pleaded for mercy; that

Defendants Ashe and Fallas, acting under color of law and in

California Highway Patrol uniforms, also began striking Plaintiff

with their collapsible batons; that Defendant Stringer, acting

under color of law and in Bakersfield Police Department uniform,

arrived and also began striking Plaintiff with his baton,

resulting in numerous fractures, requiring surgery; that, “[t]o

this day it remains unclear as to how the plaintiff was even

identified as to name and address for plaintiff did not have any

available identification on his person”. The Complaint alleges

that the officers violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing “an arrest without,

negligent investigation, assault and battery and/or excessive

force in making arrest”. The Complaint further alleges

“[i]nculpatory and/or exculpatory, and any failure to the police

to properly preserve all evidence and/or statements of any and

everybody at the scene coming and/or going of the investigation

and/or alleged crime and/or misconduct of officer(s) and/or

service personnel”. 

All defendants move 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 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

3

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

Cir. 1987). 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

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). However, th

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 and other th

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 (9 Cir.1999); Jablon v. th

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 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

4

Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9 Cir. 1980) When ruling th

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 (9th

Cir.1988). 

B. Eighth Amendment Claim.

Because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment applies only after conviction and sentence 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393 & n.6 (1989), and because

Plaintiff failed to allege that he was a convicted prisoner at

the time of the alleged excessive force, the Complaint fails to

allege a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and should be

dismissed with prejudice.

“[E]xcessive force claims arising before or during arrest

are to be analyzed exclusively under the fourth amendment’s

reasonableness standard rather than the due process standard

....” Reed v. Hoyt, 909 F.2d 324, 329 (9 Cir. 1989), cert. th

denied, 501 U.S. 1250 (1991).

Therefore, dismissal of the claim of excessive force in

violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is appropriate. 

Dismissal is GRANTED with leave to amend to allege a claim for

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

C. Negligent Investigation in Violation of Fourteenth

Amendment.

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 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

5

To the extent that the Amended Complaint may be construed to

allege a claim for negligent investigation in violation of the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants move

for dismissal that “the Constitution does not guarantee due care

on the part of state officials; liability for negligently

inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of

constitutional due process.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523

U.S. 833, 849 (1998).

Plaintiff responds that defendants’ motions “points out

negligent investigation but fails to recognize the misconduct and

the attempts to mask that misconduct that is alleged in

Plaintiff’s complaint.” 

Plaintiff’s response merely begs the question. In order to

be actionable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be

inferred that defendants’ “intended to injure in some way

unjustifiable by any government interest”, Lewis, id., citing

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)(“Historically, this

guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions

of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or

property”). Even construing the Amended Complaint liberally, the

allegations concerning the police investigation leading to or

following Plaintiff’s arrest do not satisfy this standard. 

Therefore, dismissal of this claim is GRANTED with leave to

amend.

D. Failure to Allege Compliance with California Tort Claims

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 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

6

Act.

To the extent the Amended Complaint alleges state law torts,

defendants move for dismissal because the Amended Complaint fails

to allege compliance with the claim requirements of the

California Tort Claims Act.

State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th

1234 (2004) holds that a failure to plead facts demonstrating or

excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement of

the California Tort Claims Act negates the statement of a claim

for relief.

In opposing the motions, Plaintiff submits a copy of the

denial of his claim by the City of Bakersfield and a copy of the

claim filed by Plaintiff with the State Board of Control.

Because it appears that Plaintiff can amend to allege facts

demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation

requirement, the state law tort causes of action are DISMISSED

with leave to amend.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND.

2. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint in

accordance with the rulings herein within 20 days of the filing

date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 38 Filed 12/07/06 Page 6 of 6