Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01751-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Cain Gonzalez,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Fresno, Chief Jerry

Dyer, County of Madera,

Sheriff John Anderson, and

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

1:06-cv-01751-OWW-TAG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

CITY OF FRESNO’S AND CHIEF

JERRY DYER’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 20)

I. Introduction.

Before the court is the City of Fresno’s and Chief Jerry

Dyer’s (collectively “Fresno Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure (“FRCP” or “Rule”) 12(b)(6). Specifically,

the Fresno Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth and

fifth causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) on the grounds

the allegations in support of these causes of action are vague,

conclusory, and are not adequately pleaded. 

II. Background.

A. Procedural Background.

Plaintiff, Cain Gonzalez, (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil

rights case against the City of Fresno, Chief of Police Jerry

Dyer, the County of Madera, and Sheriff John Anderson on December

4, 2006. The original complaint sought declaratory relief,

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 11
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

injunctive relief, and damages against the Fresno Defendants and

the County of Madera and Sheriff John Anderson under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, 42 U.S.C § 1985(2) and (3), the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution, California Civil

Code § 52.1(b), the Unruh and Tome Bane Civil Rights Act,

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, False Arrest,

Negligence, Negligent Retention, Hiring, and Training, and

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Before any defendant

filed an answer, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint

(“FAC”) on December 29, 2006. The FAC appears to be identical to

the original complaint.

On February 1, 2007, the Fresno Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, which Plaintiff did not oppose. On

March 7, 2007, the Fresno Defendants withdrew their motion to

dismiss the FAC. On February 8, 2007, defendants County of

Madera and Sheriff John Anderson (“Madera Defendants”) filed a

motion to dismiss the FAC, which Plaintiff did not oppose. On

March 16, 2007, by stipulation and order, the Madera Defendants

withdrew their motion to dismiss the FAC, and Plaintiff was given

leave to file a second amended complaint. 

On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended

complaint (“SAC”). On April 4, 2007, the Fresno Defendants filed

a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC, which is now before the

Court. 

B. Factual Background.

Plaintiff is a Hispanic male residing in the Eastern

District of California. Defendant City of Fresno is a municipal

corporation located in the County of Fresno. Defendant Jerry

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 11
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

Dyer is the Chief of the Fresno Police Department and is sued in

his individual and official capacities. DOES 1-4 are nameunknown members of the Fresno Police Department who are sued in

their individual and official capacities. Defendant County of

Madera is a government entity that controls the Madera Sheriff’s

Department. Defendant John Anderson is the Sheriff of the Madera

Sheriff’s Department and is sued in his individual and official

capacities.

The facts giving rise to this lawsuit are as follows. DOES

1-4 of the Fresno Police Department detained and assaulted

Plaintiff in front of his home, although it is unclear why

Plaintiff was detained. DOE 1 accused Plaintiff of possessing

drugs. According to Plaintiff, DOE 1 perceived Plaintiff as gay

and said, “I know where you faggots keep your shit.” DOE 1 then

proceeded to thrust one or more of his fingers or thumb up

Plaintiff’s anus to search for drugs. The anal cavity search

ruptured the lining of Plaintiff’s rectum causing excruciating

pain.

Plaintiff, screaming in agony, called out for his mother who

was nearby on her own property. The officers ordered Plaintiff’s

mother to go inside her house. After Plaintiff began to bleed

profusely from his rectum, the officers took him to Community

Medical Center where he received treatment for his 

injuries.

DOES 1-4 arrested Plaintiff on fabricated probable cause,

and he was incarcerated for nearly one month. No charges were

filed against Plaintiff for drug possession stemming from this

incident. While Plaintiff was incarcerated in Fresno, he missed

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 11
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

a court date on a matter for which he was scheduled to appear in

Madera County, and an arrest warrant was subsequently issued for

his nonappearance.

Plaintiff was released from Fresno County Jail and

transferred to Madera County Jail. Plaintiff, a gay male, was in

protective custody in Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff was

initially placed in protective custody in Madera County Jail, but

four days later, he was summarily placed in the general prison

population. While in general population, Plaintiff was

immediately assaulted by gang members who slashed his ear and

broke his eardrum. Plaintiff believes that the Madera Sheriff’s

Department and Fresno Police Department conspired to remove him

from protective custody to the general prison population to

intimidate him and coerce him into not filing a complaint against

the Fresno Police Department for the body cavity search.

The SAC also omitted Plaintiff’s mother as a plaintiff and

eliminated Plaintiff’s state law causes of action. Plaintiff’s

SAC seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution because of the

defendants arbitrary and unlawful use of force, and Plaintiff’s

right to be free from discriminatory law enforcement. 

Plaintiff’s SAC also seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The SAC sets forth five causes of action. The first cause

of action asserts the individual defendants, other than defendant

Anderson, violated Plaintiff’s equal protection rights under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by wrongfully

targeting for harassment by law enforcement, men who were gay,

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 11
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

their families, and Hispanics. 

The second cause of action asserts the individual

defendants, other than defendant Anderson, violated Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and

seizures. 

The third cause of action asserts one or more of the

defendants, particularly Chief Dyer and Sheriff Anderson,

violated Plaintiff’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

establishing, maintaining, encouraging, or allowing customs,

practices, or policies of providing inadequate training,

supervision, oversight, and discipline over their respective

officers that targeted gay men. 

The fourth cause of action asserts two or more of the Fresno

Defendants, including DOES 1-4, conspired 

to act and to fail and omit to act . . . for the

purpose of (i) impeding, hindering, obstructing, an

defeating the due course of justice in Fresno and

Madera (ii), and to subject Plaintiff’s property and

person to (a) deny their right to be free from

unreasonable search and seizure; (b) to deny the right

not to be deprived of life, property, or liberty

without due process of law[]

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and the Fourth Amendment.

The fifth cause of action asserts the Fresno Defendants,

including DOES 1-4, purposely, under the color of law, conspired

to deny Plaintiff equal protection of the laws under 42 U.S.C. §

1985(2) and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,

costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.

III. Legal Standard.

FRCP 12(b)(6) provides that a motion to dismiss may be made

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 11
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 the plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.” However, motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) are

disfavored and are rarely granted. The question before the court

is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail; rather, it

is whether the plaintiff could prove any set of facts in support

of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v.

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A complaint should not

be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Van Buskirk v. CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court

“accept[s] all factual allegations of the complaint as true and

draw[s] all reasonable inferences” in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th

Cir. 1999); see also Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F.3d 979, 983

(9th Cir. 2002). A court is not “required to accept as true

allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

IV. Discussion.

In response to Plaintiff’s SAC, the Fresno Defendants filed

this Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth

causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Specifically, the

Fresno Defendants contend the allegations set forth in both the

fourth and fifth causes of action are vague, conclusory, and are

not adequately pleaded. 

Plaintiff admits he inadvertently based his fourth and fifth

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 11
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

 No such statute exists; section 1983 is a single 1

paragraph. The language Plaintiff recites in his Response to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss comes from 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and

Plaintiff’s Proposed Third Amended Complaint For Damages cites

section 1985(3) as the grounds for his fourth and fifth causes of

action. 

7

causes of action on 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Plaintiff specifically

states he “intended to base it upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3) [sic] ,

1

Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Rights or Privileges.” 

Plaintiff asserts the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3) includes

“conspiring . . . . for the purpose of depriving . . . . any

person or class of persons of the equal protection of the

laws[,]” which fits the facts as alleged in the SAC. Plaintiff

states he will amend the SAC to correct this inadvertent error.

Section 1985 of Title 42 sets forth several means by which

two or more persons may conspire to interfere with an

individual’s civil rights. In particular, section 1985(2)

provides

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness,

or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat,

any party or witness in any court of the United States

from attending such court, or from testifying to any

matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully,

or to injure such party or witness in his person or

property on account of his having so attended or

testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or

indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such

court, or to injure such juror in his person or

property on account of any verdict, presentment, or

indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being

or having been such juror; or if two or more persons

conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering,

obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due

course of justice in any State or Territory, with

intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of

the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 7 of 11
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

enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any

person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of

the laws;

42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). “Section 1985(2) contains two clauses that

give rise to separate causes of action.” Portman v. County of

Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 908 (9th Cir. 1993). The first clause

concerns access to federal courts, while the second clause

concerns access to State or Territorial courts. Id. at 909.

The first clause of section 1985(2), which concerns federal

courts, is not artfully drafted, but is broken down as follows.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat,

any party or witness in any court of the United States

• from attending such court, 

• or from testifying to any matter pending

therein, freely, fully, and truthfully,

• or to injure such party or witness in

his person or property on account of his

having so attended or testified,

• or to influence the verdict,

presentment, or indictment of any grand

or petit juror in any such court,

• or to injure such juror in his person or

property on account of any verdict,

presentment, or indictment lawfully

assented to by him, or of his being or

having been such juror[.]

The second clause of section 1985(2), which concerns States

and Territories may be broken down as follows.

[I]f two or more persons conspire for the purpose of

impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any

manner,

• the due course of justice in any State

or Territory, with intent to deny to any

citizen the equal protection of the

laws, 

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 8 of 11
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

9

• or to injure him or his property for

lawfully enforcing, or attempting to

enforce, the right of any person, or

class of persons, to the equal

protection of the laws[.]

The first clause of section 1985(2) does not impose a

requirement of class-based animus on persons seeking to prove a

violation of their civil rights. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719,

726 (1983); Portman, 995 F.2d at 909. To state a claim under the

second clause of section 1985(2), the “equal protection” language

requires Plaintiff to allege a class-based animus. Portman, 995

F.2d at 909. Likewise, the first clause of section 1985(3)

requires some racial or class-based, invidiously discriminatory

animus behind the conspirators’ action. Griffin v. Breckenridge,

403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1028

(9th Cir. 1985). Gay persons, however, are not a protected class

within the meaning of section 1985(3). DeSantis v. Pacific Tel.

& Tel. Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 327, 333 (9th Cir. 1979), abrogated on

other grounds by Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enter., Inc., 256 F.3d

864, 875 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, with respect to the first clause, Plaintiff has not

asserted any facts in the SAC indicating that any of the Fresno

Defendants or Madera Defendants conspired (1) to deter Plaintiff

from attending federal court, (2) to deter Plaintiff from

testifying in federal court, (3) to injure Plaintiff for

attending or testifying in federal court, (4) to influence a

verdict, presentment, or indictment of a grand or petit juror, or

(5) to injure such juror on account of any verdict, presentment,

or indictment, or injure such juror for being a juror. This

clause presupposes that a legal proceeding in federal court

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 9 of 11
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

10

exists before two or more persons conspire to undertake any of

the proscribed acts listed above. 

As to the second clause, Plaintiff has not asserted any

facts in the SAC that any of the Fresno Defendants or Madera

Defendants conspired to impede, hinder, obstruct, or defeat the

due course of justice in a state or territory to deny Plaintiff

the equal protection of the laws. Nor have the Fresno Defendants

or Madera Defendants injured Plaintiff or his property for

enforcing or attempting to enforce the right of any person or

class of persons to the equal protection of the laws.

The only facts Plaintiff alleges regarding a conspiracy are

that the Madera Sheriff’s Department and the Fresno Police

Department conspired to have Plaintiff removed from protective

custody to general population while he was in Madera County Jail. 

The removal from protective custody in Madera County Jail,

according to Plaintiff, was to intimidate him and coerce him into

not filing a complaint against the Fresno police for the cavity

search. These allegations neither support the claim that the

defendants conspired to deny him access to a federal court, nor

do they support the claim that the defendants conspired to

impede, hinder, obstruct, or defeat the due course of justice in

a state or territory. Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a

cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). 

Plaintiff admits in his Response to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss that he inadvertently based his fourth and fifth causes

of action on 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) when they should have been based

on 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Plaintiff’s proposed third amended

complaint confirms he intended to bring his fourth and fifth

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11

causes of action under section 1985(3). At the hearing, however,

counsel for Plaintiff admitted he could not allege facts to

support a section 1985 conspiracy and agreed to delete those

claims from the third amended complaint. 

V. Conclusion.

Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a cause of action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). The Fresno Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action under 42

U.S.C. § 1985(2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes

of action are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is granted

leave to file his Third Amended Complaint within ten (10)

business days following the date of service of this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

474bb4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01751-OWW -TAG Document 30 Filed 08/08/07 Page 11 of 11