Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

OFFICER C. ARANAS, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 06-CV-1574 AWI SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE THE FRESNO

POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document #28)

BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiff Phillip Sanders (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint. On June

19, 2007, Defendant Officer C. Aranas (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. On July 27,

2007, the court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

On August 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleged violations of Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment rights. On September 10, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the

amended complaint. On October 22, 2007, the court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and

dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.

On November 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second

amended complaint alleges Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right by arresting

him without probable cause. The second amended complaint adds Defendant Fresno Police

Department as a second defendant.

On December 6, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to strike the Fresno Police Department

from Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Defendant contends that the Fresno Police

Department, as a municipal sub-department, is an improper defendant. Defendant also contends

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 5
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

that punitive damages are not available against a municipal sub-department.

On January 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to add the City of Fresno as a Defendant and

to conduct discovery. On January 15, 2008, the Magistrate Judge denied this motion because it

had not been properly noticed.

Plaintiff did not file a formal opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike. The court took

the pending motion to strike under submission, and the court now issues this memorandum

opinion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to strike from “any

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs that arise from litigating

spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins

Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9 Cir.1983). Immaterial matter is defined as matter that “has no th

essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy,

Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9 Cir 1993) (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.

th

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382, at 706-07 (1990)), rev'd on other grounds, 510

U.S. 517 (1994). Impertinent matter is defined as “statements that do not pertain, and are not

necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. 984 F.2d at 1527. Granting a motion to strike

may be proper if it will make the trial less complicated or if allegations being challenged are so

unrelated to plaintiff's claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their

presence in the pleading will be prejudicial to the moving party. Id.

ALLEGED FACTS

The second amended complaint alleges that Defendant is an officer of the Fresno Police

Department and took the actions at issue in this action while on duty.

The second amended complaint alleges that on June 6, 2006, Defendant arrested Plaintiff

without probable cause. The second amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff noticed a police car

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 5
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

pull up in front of his house and Defendant get out. The second amended complaint alleges that

after about five minutes, Plaintiff went out the back door of his house. Plaintiff saw Defendant

looking in a side garage door, which had been left open. The second amended complaint alleges

that Defendant had his back to Plaintiff and his gun out. The second amended complaint alleges

that Plaintiff then walked to the middle of the backyard, put his hands out in plain view, and said

in a loud voice, “officer, officer Don’t Shot [sic.]”.

The second amended complaint alleges that Defendant asked whether Plaintiff was

Phillip Sanders. When Plaintiff said yes, Defendant told Plaintiff to get on the ground. 

Defendant then handcuffed Plaintiff and searched him. The second amended complaint alleges

that Plaintiff was taken to jail. The second amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was

released three days later “without ever going to the court or D.A. reject.” 

The second amended complaint requests damages for Plaintiff being arrested and

detained in jail for three days without probable cause. The second amended complaint requests

compensatory or punitive damages against the Fresno Police Department and compensatory

damages alleges Defendant

DISCUSSION

A. Whether Fresno Police Department is Proper Defendant

Defendant seeks to dismiss the Fresno Police Department as a defendant. Defendant

contends that a municipal department is not a person who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A claim for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a “person” who

acted under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Local governmental units, such as counties or

municipalities, are considered “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983. Will v. Michigan

Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91 & n. 54 (1978);

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1171 (1998). However,

municipal departments and sub-units, including police departments, are generally not considered

“persons” within the meaning of Section 1983. United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1239

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 In filing a third amended complaint naming the City of Fresno, the court reminds 1

Plaintiff of the limited way a municipality may be held liable. A municipality may not be held

responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondent superior theory of liability. Monell,

436 U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9 Cir. 1995). Rather, to state a th

claim for municipal liability, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a constitutional deprivation

that was the product of a policy or custom of the local government unit. See City of Canton,

Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). 

4

(9 Cir. 2005) (Ferguson, J., concurring) (findings municipal police departments and bureaus are th

generally not considered “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Vance v. County of

Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 995-96 (N.D.Cal.1996) (holding that “naming a municipal

department as a defendant is not an appropriate means of pleading a § 1983 action against a

municipality,” and dismissing the Santa Clara Department of Corrections from the action); 

Brockmeier v. Solano County Sheriff's Dept., 2006 WL 3760276, *4 (E.D.Cal. 2006) (finding

that sheriff’s department is a municipal department and not a proper defendant for purposes of

plaintiff's § 1983 claims). 

Based on this authority, the Fresno Police Department is not a proper defendant because it

is a sub-division of the City of Fresno. It appears that, realizing this mistake, Plaintiff attempted

to amend the complaint to add the City of Fresno as a Defendant. The Magistrate Judge denied

Plaintiff’s request to amend because it was not properly before the court. However, Plaintiff’s

motion does imply that Plaintiff desires to name the City of Fresno as a Defendant in place of the

Fresno Police Department. Thus, Plaintiff will be given leave to file a third amended complaint

that names the City of Fresno as a Defendant.1

B. Punitive Damages Against a Municipality

Defendant also requests that the court strike the request for punitive damages against the

Fresno Police Department. Because the Fresno Police Department is already being struck as a

Defendant, it is unnecessary to address Defendant’s concerns about punitive damages. 

However, because it appears Plaintiff may amend this action to name the City of Fresno as a

Defendant, the court will inform Plaintiff of the damages limits he may obtain against a

municipality.

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/29/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Punitive damages are not available against a municipal entity for a violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 because municipalities enjoy traditional common law immunity from punitive damages,

and such damages would work a hardship on innocent taxpayers. Newport v. Facts Concerts,

453 U.S. 247, 258, 267, 271 (1981); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 526 (9 Cir.1996); Woods th

v. Graphic Communications, 925 F.2d 1195, 1205 (9 Cir. 1991). In addition, California th

Government Code § 818 provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity

is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code [which allows for

punitive damages] or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of

punishing the defendant.” Thus, in filing any amended complaint naming the City of Fresno,

Plaintiff is directed to be mindful of the limits on damages he can seek from the City of Fresno.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED;

2. The Fresno Police Department is HEREBY STRICKEN as a Defendant from this

action;

3. Plaintiff may file a third amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s date

of service that amends the complaint to add the City of Fresno as a Defendant; and

4. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, this action will proceed against

Defendant Officer C. Aranas on the second amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/29/08 Page 5 of 5