Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO and TRACY SINK,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00597-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT FRESNO COUNTY‘S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 

TO THE FIFTH CLAIM REGARDING 4TH 

AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS ONLY

__________________________

(ECF No. 67)

Currently before the Court is Defendant Fresno County‘s (―Fresno County‖) motion for 

partial summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff Richard Berman‘s (―Plaintiff‖ or ―Berman‖) 

fifth claim for relief for municipal liability against Fresno County. (ECF No. 67.)1 

The hearing on County of Fresno‘s motion for partial summary judgment on the fifth 

cause of action in the complaint for municipal liability took place on April 8, 2016. Jacob 

Weisberg appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Michelle Sassano and James Arendt appeared on 

behalf of Fresno County. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part Fresno 

County‘s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff‘s fifth claim for relief for municipal liability 

regarding excessive force and unlawful arrest claims in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

I.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff is a criminal defense attorney and characterizes himself as ―a vigorous and 

 

1 The Court notes that all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

(ECF Nos. 18, 47.)

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 24
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

effective advocate who has repeatedly challenged law enforcement conduct.‖ Deputy Sink is 

assigned to the Department‘s Court Services Division (―division‖) at the Fresno County Criminal 

Courthouse (―courthouse‖). Lt. Reynolds and Sgt. Bertsch are division supervisors. The 

complaint alleges 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (―section 1983‖) unlawful detention, excessive force, 

retaliation, supervisory and Monell liability and related California claims against the County 

defendants. 

On March 13, 2012, Deputy Sink arrested Plaintiff after Plaintiff, his client and the 

client‘s family member, Ms. Blunt, attempted to proceed through courthouse security screening. 

Plaintiff alleges that as Plaintiff instructed Ms. Blunt to take a plastic wrench back to her car, 

―Deputy Sink forcefully grabbed Berman and placed him under arrest‖ to injure Plaintiff‘s back, 

neck, arm and stomach/groin area. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was retaliated against for 

questioning Deputy Sink‘s authority and advocating Ms. Blunt‘s rights. In his fifth claim for 

relief, Plaintiff alleges municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 29, 2016, Fresno County filed the instant motion for partial summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 67.) On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for 

partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 69.)2 On April 5, 2016, Fresno County filed a reply to 

Plaintiff‘s opposition. 

II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, ―[a] party may move for summary judgment ... 

if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ Summary judgment must be entered ―against a party 

who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 

party‘s case...‖ Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). ―[A] party seeking summary 

judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its 

motion, and identifying those portions of  ̳the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 

 

2 On April 7, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff‘s request to exceed the page limitations for the opposition to the 

motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 73.) 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 24
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

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,‘ which it believes demonstrate the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.‖ Id. 

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing 

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the 

existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its 

pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or 

admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11.

III.

UNDISPUTED FACTS3

1. Deputy Tracy attended a POST certified basic police academy at Fresno City 

College.

2. Deputy Sink was hired with the Fresno County Sheriff‘s Office in 2007.

3. Deputy Sink has spent all but one year of service working for court services unit 

in various positions. 

4. On March 13, 2012, Deputy Sink was assigned to the main courthouse lobby.

5. On the date of the incident, Deputy Sink was working in the baggage search area.

6. Deputy Sink was familiar with the Fresno County Sheriff Department‘s Policies 

and Procedures for Use of Force on March 13, 2012.

7. On March 13, 2012, Toshia Blunt put her purse on the conveyor belt to be 

scanned.

8. On March 13, 2012, a plastic wrench was located in Toshia Blunt‘s purse.4

 

3

Plaintiff moves to exclude numerous pieces of evidence and objects to undisputed facts presented by Fresno 

County based on the grounds of relevance and hearsay. (ECF Nos. 69-1, 69-6.) Fresno County objects to numerous 

undisputed facts by Plaintiff on the basis of relevance and hearsay. (ECF No. 71-2.) To the extent the Court 

necessarily relied on evidence that has been objected to, the Court relied only on admissible evidence and, therefore, 

the objections are OVERRULED. It is not the practice of the Court to rule on evidentiary matters individually in the 

context of summary judgment, unless otherwise noted. This is particularly true when the evidentiary objections 

consist of general objections such as relevance. See Capital Records, LLC v. BlueBeat, Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 1198, 

1200 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 24
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

9. Deputy Sink asked whose purse had the plastic wrench and it was Toshia‘s.

10. Deputy Sink informed Toshia Blunt that the plastic wrench could not be brought 

in and asked Toshia to take it out.

11. Deputy Sink did not tell her to throw the plastic wrench away.

12. Deputy Sink handed the plastic wrench to Toshia Blunt to take outside the 

courthouse. 

13. Richard Berman walked over from the elevators to where Toshia Blunt and 

Deputy Sink were located. 

14. Toshia Blunt handed the plastic wrench to Richard Berman.

15. Richard Berman stated that the plastic wrench was only plastic.

16. Deputy Sink tried to get the plastic wrench back from Richard Berman on more 

than one occasion.

17. Richard Berman did not give the plastic wrench back to Deputy Sink.

18. Toshia Blunt remembers the Deputy telling Richard Berman that she was going to 

handcuff him. 

19 Nadia, Richard Berman‘s client and Toshia Blunt‘s sister, heard Deputy Sink say 

she was going to arrest Richard Berman.

20. After Richard Berman was handcuffed, he was placed in a chair in the lobby. 

21. At the time of the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit, it was the policy of 

the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department to comply with the minimum training requirements for peace 

officers in the State of California as mandated by POST. 

22. POST is recognized as the authority that governs the training of peace officers in 

California.

23. Deputy sheriffs employed by Fresno Sheriff‘s Department are required to attend 

POST certified academy.

 

4

 Plaintiff objects to Fresno County‘s description of the wrench as a hard plastic adjustable wrench. Plaintiff wants 

the undisputed fact to refer to that item as a plastic toy wrench. The Court notes that whether the item is a toy 

wrench or a hard plastic adjustable wrench is immaterial to the instant motion for summary judgment. The parties 

do not dispute that the wrench was a plastic wrench and the Court will refer to it as a plastic wrench. 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 24
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

24. Additionally, deputies receiving ongoing training in compliance with POST

standards.

25. Deputies receive training consistent with policies and legal standards concerning 

use of force and arrest.

26. In 2007, when Deputy Sink was initially hired, deputies underwent a 14 to 16 

week field training program. 

27. The new deputies were placed with three different experienced training officers 

during this program.

28. Deputies were instructed on a number of topics, including, but not limited to the 

policies and procedures of the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department and relevant standards concerning 

use of force and arrest, and report writing.

29. Deputies were evaluated on a daily basis during the field training program. 

30. Fresno County deputy sheriffs also receive on-the-job training, and attend 

advanced officer courses, and various classes and seminars offered throughout California.

31. The Sheriff‘s Department has a training unit that ensures deputy sheriffs receive 

training in compliance with POST.

32. At the time of this incident, Fresno Sheriff‘s Department met or exceeded POST 

minimum training requirements.

33. It is the practice of Fresno Sheriff‘s Department that if a particular training need 

for a specific deputy is identified, the training will be provided.

34. At the time of the incident, Deputy Tracy Sink was in compliance with POST and 

Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department training requirements.

35. At the time of the incident, Lt. Mark Padilla was the court security unit 

commander.

36. At the time of the incident, Fresno County deputy sheriffs in the court security 

unit were supervised through a chain of command: sergeant, lieutenant, assistant sheriff and 

sheriff. 

37. Deputies were supervised on a daily basis by sergeants, their immediate 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 24
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

supervisors, and/or senior deputies.

38. Deputies were expected to comply with Fresno Sheriff‘s Department policies, 

practices, procedures, and training requirements, and were subject to disciplinary actions if they 

failed to do so.

39. At no time has the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department had a policy, practice, or custom 

of improperly supervising its deputy sheriffs.

40. At the time of the subject incident, and at all times as alleged by the plaintiffs, it 

was the policy of the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department to conduct annual performance evaluations of 

deputy sheriffs.

41. Evaluations were prepared by a deputy‘s immediate supervisor.

42. The evaluation considers the quantity and quality of work, responsiveness, 

compliance with rules, regulations and procedures, interpersonal skills, technical skills, 

professional skills, attendance, and productivity.

43. The supervisor preparing the evaluation may speak to the deputy‘s peers and other 

supervisors the deputy may have had.

44. Supervisors preparing performance evaluations review a deputy‘s personnel and 

bureau files to determine if they received any disciplinary actions during the rating period, and/or 

commendations for work performance.

45. After the evaluation is prepared, the sergeant who prepared it will review the 

evaluation with the subject deputy.

46. Evaluations note both positive and negative traits of the particular deputy sheriff 

being reviewed. 

47. The evaluation could also identify any training needs of a deputy that were 

perceived necessary.

48. The evaluations are maintained in a deputy‘s personnel file. 

49. A bureau file is also maintained for individual deputy sheriffs.

50. A bureau file is considered a working file and follows a deputy to each 

bureau/unit they are assigned. 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 6 of 24
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

7

51. One purpose of the bureau file is to maintain documents to be reviewed by a 

deputy‘s supervisor when preparing the yearly evaluation and to note particular training needs.

52. All deputy sheriffs received training with respect to these issues and compliance 

with Fresno Sheriff‘s Department policy in this regard. 

53. At the time of the incident, and at all prior times, it was the policy of the Fresno 

County Sheriff‘s Department that no member shall act or behave in such a manner that would 

bring the discredit or ridicule upon themselves or the department.

54. It is also the policy that members shall be respectful, courteous and civil with all 

members of the public and shall not use profane or insolent language toward any person.

55. At the time of the subject incident, and at all times as alleged by plaintiffs, it has 

been the policy and practice of the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department to conduct thorough 

investigations into allegations of misconduct on the part of its personnel.

56. An administrative investigation into allegations of misconduct may be initiated by 

a citizen through the presentation of a citizen complaint to the Fresno Sherriff‘s Department, or 

initiated internally by members of the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department. 

57. Sheriff‘s Department personnel are put on notice, in writing, if they are the 

subject of an Internal Affairs investigation.

58. Once it is determined that a complaint will result in an investigation, it will be 

assigned either to an Internal Affairs investigator, or returned to the bureau of the deputy that is 

the subject of the complaint to conduct the investigation.

59. The investigator will conduct interviews and obtain relevant documents.

60. The investigator generally will also determine if there have been similar 

complaints against the involved deputy. 

61. After the investigation is completed, the investigator will prepare a summary 

investigative package.

62. The investigative package will then go to the commander of the unit where the 

involved deputy works.

63. The unit commander will then review the investigation and make a 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 7 of 24
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

recommendation whether discipline should be imposed, and/or whether additional training or 

other corrective action be taken.

64. The investigation and recommendation will then go to the Sheriff‘s Department 

Professional Standards Review Board (―PSRB‖) for an independent review.

65. The PSRB meets and jointly reviews the investigation and also recommends 

whether policy was violated, and if so, discipline that should be imposed.

66. After the PSRB review, the investigation goes through the same process with the 

Undersheriff.

67. After the Undersheriff‘s review, the investigation goes to the Sheriff for review 

and a final disposition.

68. With respect to the internal investigation related to the incident that is the subject 

of this lawsuit, the above-described procedures were followed.

69. If a disciplinary measure is imposed, documentation reflecting that determination 

will be placed in the involved deputy‘s personnel file.

79. If discipline is not imposed, the completed Internal Affairs investigation is 

maintained in the Internal Affairs Unit office.

71. These records may be reviewed upon request by supervisors of Sheriff‘s 

Department personnel.

72. At all times relevant to this action, it was the policy of the Fresno Sheriff‘s 

Department to take sufficient corrective action to prevent its employees from committing 

misconduct, including constitutional violations or any violation of state or federal law.

73. Sgt. Bertsch was one of Deputy Sink‘s supervisors at the time of the incident.

74. Sgt. Bertsch was on duty the day of the incident and called to the lobby.

75. After the incident, Sgt. Bertsch investigated the incident by speaking with Deputy 

Herman, Deputy Sink and watching the video and determined probable cause for the arrest.

76. Deputy Sink only had less than five verbal complaints of being rude between May 

2001 and the incident.

77. The complaints generally consisted of a people being refused entry of an item into 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 8 of 24
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

the courthouse and complaining that Deputy Sink was rude.

78. No one ever complained that Deputy Sink used foul language.5

79. The courthouse receives between an estimated 1,000-3,000 people per day, so 

Sgt. Bertsch did not feel 4 verbal complaints were a problem in a 10 month period. 

80. Sgt. Bertsch spoke with Deputy Sink each time someone stated she was rude.

81. Sgt. Bertsch would have written Deputy Sink up if there was ever a complaint of 

foul language.6

82. Sgt. Bertsch, during the timeframe of this incident, prepared Deputy Sink‘s 

evaluations.

83. In December 2012, a citizen complaint was filed that Deputy Sink was rude.

84. An IA investigation was conducted into the complaint.

85. All the proper procedures were followed for the IA investigation.

86. The determination of the IA investigation was not sustained. 

87. Plaintiff Richard P. Berman is an attorney at law who has practiced law in Fresno 

County from 1973 to February 2016, when he became an inactive member of the State Bar 

Association. He is the former President of the Fresno County Bar Association. He is a former 

Chief Deputy District Attorney of Fresno County; he was in the United States Army Reserve 

from 1968 to 1980 and attained the rank of Captain; and was an active participant in civic and 

charitable organizations. He was 65 years old at the time of the incident. He has no criminal 

 

5

Fresno County stated that it is undisputed that no one ever complained that Deputy Sink used foul or inappropriate 

language. Plaintiff concedes that there are no records that anyone complained that Deputy Sink used foul language, 

and therefore this is an undisputed fact. Plaintiff argues that there were complaints that Deputy Sink used 

inappropriate language, because there were complaints that she was rude and rude language is inappropriate 

language. 

6

Plaintiff objects to this fact, citing Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, because he alleges that it calls for 

speculation as to what would have happened if there had been a complaint of foul language. Rule 401 of the Federal 

Rules of Evidence sets forth the test for relevant evidence as follows:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence; and 

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. 

The Court only considers evidence that is relevant in determining the motion for summary judgment, so any 

evidence that is not relevant is not considered. 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 9 of 24
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

record either before the incident or afterwards.

88. On March 13, 2012, Mr. Berman entered the Fresno County Superior Courthouse 

on Van Ness Avenue to handle a proceeding for his client, Nadia Diaz. Her sister, Toshia Blunt, 

came with her as a support person.

89. Mr. Berman entered the courthouse lobby going through security. Ms. Diaz 

entered the courthouse through security. Toshia Blunt was stopped by Deputy Sink when she 

came through the main courthouse security because her 3 1⁄2 year old son had left a plastic

wrench in her purse. Deputy Sink took the plastic wrench and told Toshia Blunt that she needed 

to take the plastic wrench out of the courthouse.

90. It was the opinion of Sergeant Lopez, a supervisor of Deputy Sink when she was 

assigned to courthouse security, that, when shown a facsimile of the toy wrench, that there was 

no problem with this particular toy being brought into the courthouse.

91. Sergeant Lopez stated that if someone just comes in with this [toy] ―That‘s my 

kid‘s; I look at it, I handle it. I make a determination and use the discretion I‘m afforded.  ̳Come 

on in.‘‖ 

92. Mr. Berman, who was waiting at the elevator for Ms. Blunt so that the three of 

them could go up to the courtroom, noticed the delay and walked back to find out why. Ms. 

Blunt told Mr. Berman that she was not being allowed to bring the plastic wrench into the 

courthouse. Mr. Berman asked her what the problem was. She held up the plastic wrench and 

said ―This is my son‘s. I put it in my purse when he got out to go to school.‖ 

93. At the same time Ms. Blunt was conversing with Mr. Berman, Deputy Sink said, 

―It‘s got to go out or throw it away.‖ Ms. Blunt handed the toy wrench to Mr. Berman, who 

observed that it weighed about an ounce, slightly more than a first class envelope, and he turned 

to Deputy Sink and asked her if it was contraband. And she said to throw it away, that it‘s got to 

go out. Mr. Berman said ―It‘s plastic, is this contraband?‖ Deputy Sink said, ―Throw it away. 

Get rid of it.‖

94. Mr. Berman intended to give the plastic wrench to Ms. Blunt so she could take it 

back to his office or put it in the car, because that‘s what he does when a client has something 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 10 of 24
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

that is not allowed in the courthouse.

95. Deputy Sink confronted Mr. Berman before he could tell Ms. Blunt to leave and 

before he could give her the wrench and tell her to take it back.

96. Deputy Sink suddenly grabbed at the toy and said, ―Give it to me. Give it to me.‖

Mr. Berman said, ―Wait a second. Hold on just a second.‖ He was just trying to talk to Deputy 

Sink. She grabbed him by the arm. He had not taken any aggressive action toward her by body

language or by anything that he said. As soon as she grabbed him, he exclaimed, ―Please don‘t 

hurt my back. Please don‘t hurt my back. I just had surgery. I just had surgery. I had spinal fusion. 

Please don‘t do that.‖ 

97. Notwithstanding Mr. Berman‘s clear statement regarding his disability, Deputy 

Sink grabbed his arm and tried to put his arm behind him in a hammerlock. She had both hands 

in one arm. In his other arm he had been carrying a file. He had brought an expando file and he 

is right handed so that‘s the arm in which he carried it. 

98. In no way did Mr. Berman ever fight with Deputy Sink. She grabbed him, turned 

him around and he just spun around, stepped back, spun around and they were face to face. 

99. Deputy Sink came at Mr. Berman again while he begged her not to hurt his back. 

He had the file in one hand and the plastic wrench in the other down by his side. 

100. After Deputy Sink grabbed him, completely disregarding his condition and his 

lack of aggressiveness, she wrestled him from that location. He even tried to step back a couple

of times to avoid the violence. She grabbed him, spun him around, wrestled him around, 

violently threw him on the table, and then she said put your hands behind your back. 

101. On March 13, 2012 Mr. Berman had been off work for four months because he had 

had serious and extensive back surgery and returned to work about a week before this incident. 

102. Lt. Reynolds confirmed that he had received emails on February 18, 2014 from 

Judge Conklin, then presiding judge of the Superior Court, and Judge Hillary Chittick addressed 

directly at Deputy Sink. In that email to Lt. Reynolds of February 18, 2014, Judge Conklin 

referred to comments received from jurors concerning treatment they had received upon entering 

the building and contacting Sheriff‘s Department screening staff. He noted that these comments 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 11 of 24
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

12

were not isolated. In this case five of the twelve jurors in Judge Chittick‘s courtroom passed on 

negative comments concerning treatment they received from the Sheriff‘s Department including, 

specifically, the security guards being very rude, some treated jurors as if they were criminals by 

the way they were treated and spoken to. Entry into the courthouse as a juror was horrible most 

of the time. They were rude and treated jurors as if they were an inconvenience. The female 

security officer for jurors and employees was often rude which did not seem appropriate. 

Security check-in staff was not courteous at times. 

103. When asked about whether he was concerned about the statement that the jurors 

claimed that entry as a juror was horrible most of the time, Lt. Reynolds responded that ―it is a 

very strong statement, but we‘re talking about jury members coming through a screening process 

day after day after day, and it‘s an inconvenience.‖

104. When questioned about this, Lt. Reynolds says ―What was so horrible? The fact 

that they were subject to screening?‖ Plaintiff‘s Counsel stated ―I don‘t know.‖ Lt. Reynolds‘ 

responded ―I don‘t know either.‖ 

105. Lt. Reynolds determined there was no need to continue investigation because he 

did not believe there was any violation of government policy. 

106. Lt. Reynolds knew that he could find the names of jurors and question them as to 

why they gave this input to the Judge. 

107. Lt. Reynolds intentionally decided not to discuss the issue with the jurors because 

he did not believe is was necessary. 

108. Lt. Reynolds thought that even though he was concerned that the complaints were 

not specific enough, he did not feel called upon as part of his duties as a supervisor to inquire of 

the jurors more detailed information. 

109. However, Lt. Reynolds not only did not investigate these complaints, he did not 

even communicate to Deputy Sink that these complaints had been made about her, as he did not 

believe that it was necessary. He did, however, remove her from the position of screening in 

February 2014 and said he would not allow her to return to that position.

110. Lt. Reynolds acknowledged that he could not recall offhand receiving any emails 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 12 of 24
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

13

from the judges about any other person in the three years that he was in charge of court services.

111. Deputy Sink did not return to screening as a primary assignment after February 

18, 2014 or February 19, 2014. As a training officer, she does train new deputies in that 

position. 

112. Even though Lt. Reynolds removed Deputy Sink from her screening position, he 

nonetheless permitted her to remain as a training officer.

113. Lt. Reynolds concluded that he would not put her back as a screening person, 

―Unless I felt like I wanted to hear these complaints again, I wouldn‘t.‖ 

114. Indeed, Lt. Reynolds never even spoke to Deputy Sink about these complaints. 

115. Lt. Reynolds received a complaint from Judge Ellison on April 14, 2014, two 

months after the juror complaints in February of 2014.

116. Lt. Reynolds then got an email from Judge Ellison specifically complaining about 

Deputy Sink that he had rude encounters with her. The details are not important; he said they 

were apparently consistent with her behavior when she was previously assigned to entry 

screening. ―Perhaps you can find an assignment for her that does not involve interaction with 

other human beings.‖ 

117. Lt. Reynolds did not believe that Judge Ellison‘s email was specific enough. He 

had agreed to meet with Judge Ellison at a later time but did not. 

118. With regard to the statement that Judge Ellison made that ―Perhaps you can find 

an assignment for her that does not involve interaction with other human beings,‖ Lt. Reynolds 

did not consider that that statement required him to do additional investigation.

119. Lt. Reynolds never discussed the complaint that he had received from Judge 

Ellison with Deputy Sink. 

120. Lt. Reynolds never even discussed with Deputy Sink the fact that three judges had 

made complaints about Deputy Sink‘s behavior. 

121. On March 13, 2012, Mr. Berman wrote a letter complaining of his unlawful arrest 

and use of excessive force to the Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department requesting that all 

evidence, including courthouse surveillance, be preserved. The Sheriff‘s Department did not

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 13 of 24
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

14

conduct any investigation of Mr. Berman‘s complaints. No one from the County sought to 

interview Mr. Berman or Ms. Blunt about the incident. 

IV.

ANALYSIS

The fifth claim for relief alleges that Fresno County had a custom, policy, or practice that 

resulted in a failure to adequately train or supervise its court services division employees and/or 

agents to prevent the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the 

misconduct is affirmatively linked to constitutional violations set forth in his first, second, and 

third claims for relief, which are for the false arrest and unlawful detention of Plaintiff in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment, the excessive and unreasonable force used against Plaintiff 

in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and retaliation against Plaintiff for exercising his First 

Amendment rights to dispute, question, challenge, and seek redress against government 

authorities without reprisal. Fresno County moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff‘s fifth 

claim for relief for Monell claims asserted against Fresno County. Fresno County asserts that the 

Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department does not have a policy or practice which permits use of 

excessive force or unlawful arrest and that Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department has an effective 

policy and procedure to train and supervise its employees.

A. Monell Liability for Failure to Train and Supervise Deputies on Retaliation 

for Exercising First Amendment Rights

As noted, Defendant Fresno County moves for summary judgment on the fifth claim for 

relief. In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Fresno County did not seek summary judgment as 

to the municipal liability claim for violation of Plaintiff‘s First Amendment rights. Fresno 

County counters that it did ask for summary judgment on the entire fifth cause of action. Fresno 

counter asserts that the fifth claim for relief does not contain specific facts regarding a violation 

of the First or Fourth Amendment, but does acknowledge that the fifth claim for relief

incorporates the third claim for relief, in which Plaintiff alleges that exercising his First 

Amendment right to question, challenge, and address authority subjected him to retaliation when 

he was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force. Fresno County argues that it addressed 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 14 of 24
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

15

both the First and Fourth Amendment claims by addressing the policies and procedures, 

including the training and supervision, for lawful arrest and use of force. 

However, the Court finds that Fresno County did not address or reference the Monell

claim regarding retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his First Amendment rights in its motion for 

summary judgment. Fresno County did not reference in its summary judgment motion any 

training or supervision with regard to retaliation for a person exercising his or her First 

Amendment rights. Fresno County has not sufficiently shown an absence of a genuine issue of 

material fact for the Monell claim regarding retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his First 

Amendment rights. Fresno County has not met its initial responsibility in regard to the Monell

claim regarding retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his First Amendment rights. Therefore, 

summary judgment will be denied as to Plaintiff‘s Monell claim for a violation of Plaintiff‘s First 

Amendment rights. The remainder of this order only addresses whether summary judgment is 

appropriate on the Monell claim for violation of Plaintiff‘s Fourth Amendment rights. 

B. Legal Standard for Monell Claim

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a 

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 

691 (1978). Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury 

complained of through a policy or custom. Waggy v. Spokane County Washington, 594 F.3d 

707, 713 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Generally, to establish municipal liability, the plaintiff must show that a constitutional 

right was violated, the municipality had a policy, that policy was deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff‘s constitutional rights, ―and the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional 

violation.‖ Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); 

see also Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In the instant summary judgment motion, Fresno County does not challenge whether 

Plaintiff‘s constitutional rights were violated. Plaintiff must prove all of the elements of the 

Monell claim, so if Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to show that a genuine issue of material fact 

exists as to any element of the Monell claim, then summary judgment is appropriate. In this 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 15 of 24
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

16

motion for summary judgment Fresno County does not challenge the element regarding whether 

Plaintiff‘s constitutional rights were violated, therefore, the Court does not analyze this element. 

C. County of Fresno’s Policy Regarding Training and Supervision of Deputies

―A municipality‘s failure to train an employee who has caused a constitutional violation 

can be the basis for § 1983 liability where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference 

to the rights of persons with whom the employee comes into contact.‖ Long v. County of Los 

Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006); see City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 

388 (1989). ―The issue is whether the training program is adequate and, if it is not, whether such 

inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent municipal policy.‖ Long, 442 F.3d at 

1186, see Canton, 489 U.S. at 390. The failure to train must be the moving force behind the 

constitutional violation. Id. at 391. 

A municipality may be held liable by showing 1) a practice or custom which constitutes a 

standard operating procedure of the entity; 2) ―by showing that the decision-making official was, 

as a matter of state law, a final policymaking authority whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to 

represent official policy in the area of decision,‖ or 3) ―by showing that an official with final 

policymaking authority either delegated that authority to, or ratified the decision of, a 

subordinate.‖ Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(internal punctuation and citations omitted). ―A custom can be shown or a policy can be inferred 

from widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant 

municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded.‖ Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 

1190, 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal punctuation omitted). ―Liability for improper custom may 

not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents and that [t]he custom must be so persistent 

and widespread that it constitutes a permanent and well settled city policy.‖ Hunter v. County of 

Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1233 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 

(9th Cir.1996) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Defendant Fresno County has the initial 

burden of setting forth its bases for its motion and identifying those portions of ―the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 16 of 24
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

17

any, which it believe[d] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.‖ Celotex 

Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. Here, Fresno County argues that the evidence is clear that Fresno 

County Sheriff‘s Department had a detailed and stringent training policy and procedure for its 

deputies regarding the proper use of force and arrest that complied with POST standards and that 

Deputy Sink was up to date on her training requirements at the time of the incident. Fresno 

County asserts that it has never had a policy or custom of allowing its personnel to use excessive 

force and commit false arrests. Fresno County also argues that there is no evidence that there 

was any failure to supervise the deputies, including Deputy Sink, that amounted to deliberate 

indifference or that any inadequacy in supervision could have resulted in the subject incident. 

The Court finds that Fresno County has met its initial burden that the Fresno County 

Sheriff‘s Department did not have a policy that was indifferent to Fourth Amendment rights 

regarding excessive force, unlawfully detaining, and false arrest.

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing the 

summary judgment motion to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does 

exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586. Plaintiff alleges that Fresno County failed to 

train Defendant Sink on the use of force and lawful arrest. Plaintiff also alleges that Fresno 

County has adopted an unconstitutional custom or practice because it fails to supervise, 

investigate, and discipline employees for constitutional violations, as evidenced by how Fresno 

County handled the pre-incident complaints and post-incident complaints against Deputy Sink.

1. Deputy Sink‘s Training

Plaintiff has failed to show that Fresno County failed to train Sheriff‘s Department 

deputies on the proper procedure for lawful arrest and the use of force. Fresno County argues 

that the Sheriff‘s Department had a very detailed and stringent training policy and procedure for 

its deputies which complied with POST standards. (UF21.) While Plaintiff alleges that Fresno 

County failed to train Defendant Sink on the use of force and lawful arrest, Defendant Sink had 

attended a POST certified police academy and received basic POST certification. (UF34; Gilbert 

Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) In Ryan Gilbert‘s declaration, he states that ―[a]t the time of the incident that is 

the subject of this lawsuit, it was the policy of the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department to comply with 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 17 of 24
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

18

the minimum training requirements for peace officers in the State of California as mandated by 

POST.‖ (Gilbert Decl. ¶ 2.) Also, Mr. Gilbert states:

In 2007 when Tracy Sink was hired, deputies underwent a 14 to 16 

week field training program. The new deputies were placed with 

three different experienced training officers during this program. 

Deputies were instructed on a number of topics, including, but not 

limited to the policies and procedures of the Fresno Sheriff‘s 

Department and relevant standards concerning use of force and 

lawful arrest. Deputies were evaluated on a daily basis during the 

field training program.

(Gilbert Decl. ¶ 4.)

Therefore, Fresno County has presented evidence that Fresno County Sheriff‘s 

Department‘s training was in compliance with POST and that Deputy Sink was up to date on her 

training requirements. Plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary to refute the evidence 

presented by Fresno County. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. Plaintiff has not shown that 

there is a material dispute of fact regarding the Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department having a 

custom or policy that was indifferent to constitutional rights that resulted in a failure to 

adequately train.

2. Supervision, Investigation, and Discipline of Employees

Plaintiff argues that Fresno County has adopted an unconstitutional custom or practice as 

shown by its failure to supervise, investigate, and discipline employees for widespread 

constitutional violations. A custom or practice can be ―inferred from widespread practices or 

 ̳evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not 

discharged or reprimanded.‘ ‖ Hunter, 652 F.3d at 1233-34 (quoting Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. 

Police Dep‘t, 268 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 

1349 (9th Cir.1992), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Beck v. City of Upland, 527 

F.3d 853, 862 n. 8 (9th Cir.2008)).

At the time of the incident, Fresno County deputy sheriffs in the court security unit were 

supervised through a chain of command: sergeant, lieutenant, assistant sheriff and sheriff. (UF 

36.) Deputies were supervised on a daily basis by sergeants, their immediate supervisors, and/or 

senior deputies. (UF 37.) 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 18 of 24
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

19

Plaintiff argues that Fresno County did not adequately investigate Plaintiff‘s written 

complaint made to Sheriff Mims on March 13, 2012, even though Penal Code § 832.5 required 

Fresno County to do so. Plaintiff also argues that Fresno County‘s failure to comply with 

Section 832.5 of the California Penal Code has resulted in him not knowing how many other 

members of the public complained to the County about Deputy Sink. Fresno County argues that 

it is in compliance with Penal Code § 832.5 because Fresno Sheriff‘s Department has a citizen 

complaint procedure in place. Penal Code section 832.5 provides in relevant part as follows:

(a)(1) Each department or agency in this state that employs peace 

officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by 

members of the public against the personnel of these departments 

or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure 

available to the public.

In Sheriff Mims‘s declaration, she states that the Fresno Sheriff‘s Department permits 

citizens to present citizen complaints to the Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department, which triggers

an administrative investigation. (UF 56; Mims Decl. ¶ 5.) ―Once it is determined that a 

complaint will result in an investigation, it is assigned either to an Internal Affairs investigator, 

or returned to the bureau of the deputy that is the subject of the complaint to conduct the 

investigation. An investigation will then be conducted into whether there was a violation of any 

Sheriff‘s Department policies or law.‖ (Mims Decl. ¶ 6.) The Fresno County Sheriff‘s 

Department has a written procedure for members of the public to file written citizen‘s complaints 

against peace officers. The fact that Mr. Berman did not avail himself of this option does not 

impact whether Fresno County is in compliance with Penal Code § 832.5. 

a. Pre-incident complaints 

Prior to the incident at issue in this case, there were four to five oral complaints that 

Deputy Sink was rude. (UF 76; Sgt. Bertsch Depo. 53:8-54:3). Specifically, Sgt. George 

Bertsch‘s deposition testimony stated:

Q: Okay, fair enough. Now during the time that you were her 

supervisor, the ten months that you were her supervisor, did you 

ever get any complaints about her that - did any people ever 

complain that she was perceived as being loud and rude, ever? 

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. How many occasions did you get complaints about her?

A: I couldn‘t give you an exact amount, but I would say less than 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 19 of 24
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

20

five.

Q: More than four? 

A: Four to five.

Q: Four to five. I‘m just asking - - -

A: I would - - I guess I would say four to five.

Q: And that would be in ten months? 

A: Yes.

Q: Did you counsel her about that? 

A: We discussed it.

Q: How many times did you discuss it?

A: Every time.

(Sgt. Bertsch Depo. 53:8-54:3.) 

Sgt. Bertsch testified that for the four or five complaints, he would go down and ask the 

complainant what had occurred. After learning the circumstances that led to the complaint, he 

would inform the complainants about the situation at the courthouse. (Sgt. Bertsch Depo. 54:15-

22.) Most complainants were upset because they were trying to bring something into the 

courthouse that was not allowed. (UF 77; Sgt. Bertsch Depo. 54:22-24.) Sgt. Bertsch talked to 

Deputy Sink after each verbal complaint and explained that ―Hey, you know, maybe you need to 

be, you now –I don‘t want to say—a little nicer; let me put it that way.‖ Sgt. Bertsch testified 

that rude was not acceptable to him. (UF 80; Bertsch Depo. 55:10-11.) Sgt. Bertsch completed

Deputy Sink‘s evaluations, but he did not include these four to five verbal complaints because he 

did not think it was a problem that needed to be addressed because she had 4 or 5 complaints 

over a 10 month span and there were between 1,000 and 3,000 people a day in the courthouse. 

(UF 79; Bertsch Depo. 56:5-24.) 

Therefore, there is evidence in the record that Deputy Sink‘s supervisor, Sgt. Bertsch, did 

speak to her after each of the pre-incident verbal complaints. Plaintiff has not presented any 

evidence to contradict this. Furthermore, Sgt. Bertsch explained his decision not to include these 

four or five pre-incident complaints in Deputy Sink‘s evaluations because of the small number of 

complaints compared to the large number of people that she interacted with over that ten month 

period. Therefore, the Court finds that the pre-incident complaints do not support Plaintiff‘s 

claim that Fresno County failed to adequately investigate, discipline, or supervise employees. 

b. Post-incident complaints

Plaintiff also points to post-incident evidence. See Henry v. Cnty. of Shasta, 132 F.3d 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 20 of 24
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

21

512, 519 (9th Cir. 1997), amended on denial of rehearing, 132 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 1997) (―[P]ostevent evidence is not only admissible for purposes of proving the existence of a municipal 

defendant‘s policy or custom, but is highly probative with respect to that inquiry.‖). Plaintiff 

argues that a jury could find that the inaction of Deputy Sink‘s supervisors and the Sheriff‘s 

Department to the complaints against her manifest a policy or practice of deliberate indifference 

to the constitutional rights of the public, including Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff alleges that the three post-incident complaints from judges about Deputy Sink 

resulted in no discipline or real training and that Deputy Sink was not even told about the 

incidents. The incident occurred between Deputy Sink and Plaintiff on March 13, 2012. (UF 4-

20; UF 88-100.) The post-incident complaints occurred approximately two years after the 

incident. (UF 102.) Although Plaintiff claims that Deputy Sink was not told about the incidents, 

it is clear from a review of the deposition transcripts that Sgt. Lopez informed her about the 

February 2014 juror complaints. Sgt. Lopez was Deputy Sink‘s sergeant from September 2012 

until February 2014. (Lopez Depo. 5:22-8:6.) 

On February 18, 2014, Judge Conklin contacted Lt. Reynolds to discuss comments made 

by the jurors in Judge Chittick‘s court. (Reynolds Depo. 30:8-31:12.) On February 19, 2014, 

Judge Chittick forwarded the comments from the jurors to Lt. Reynolds. These two emails by 

Judge Conklin and Judge Chittick refer to the same incident. Lt. Reynolds testified during his 

deposition that there were no comments in Judge Conklin‘s email about what Deputy Sink did 

that was rude except that she treated the jurors as if they were an inconvenience. (Reynolds 

Depo. 32:10-25.) Lt. Reynolds based his decision that there was no violation of department 

policy on the email conversations and a follow-up conversation that he had with Judge Chittick. 

(UF 105; Reynolds Depo. 34:2-35:4.) 

 Sgt. Lopez testified that Lt. Reynolds told him about the complaints from the jurors, 

specifically from Judge Chittick‘s courtroom. (Lopez Depo. 37:20-38:4.) Sgt. Lopez testified 

that these complaints were directed at the whole lobby team as well as a specific comment about 

Deputy Sink and that these comments concerned him. (Lopez Depo. 38:17-39:17.) After 

learning of the complaints, Sgt. Lopez contacted his lead deputy at the time, Deputy Horne. 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 21 of 24
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

22

(Lopez Depo. 40:2-12.) Deputy Horne spoke with the clerk of court and the judge to try to get 

specifics, but he reported to Sgt. Lopez that the complaints were in generalities. (Lopez Depo. 

40:14-17.) The complaints were notes that were written by jurors at the end of their jury service, 

but the jurors were gone by the time that the officers went to follow up. (Lopez Depo. 40:17-

24.) 

Sgt. Lopez testified that he did ask Deputy Sink if she recalled anything happening that 

would be deemed rude, but she did not recall any particular incident. (Lopez Depo. 42:13-17.) 

In response to the emails, Sgt. Lopez spoke to the lobby team and reminded everyone to be 

professional and to be cognizant of how they say things and what they say. (Lopez Depo. 43:19-

44:2.) Sgt. Lopez also told the lobby team that he wanted to know about anything that he needed 

to know about on the day of and not at a later date, so that he could take steps to look into it. 

(Lopez Depo. 44:2-6.) 

On April 15, 2014, Judge Ellison complained about Deputy Sink‘s behavior to Lt. 

Reynolds. (UF 115-116; Reynolds Depo. 38:7-11.) Lt. Reynolds testified that he and Judge 

Ellison agreed to meet at a later time to discuss it, but that time never came. (Reynolds Depo. 

39:21-40:1.) Lt. Reynolds testified that he is sure that he advised Deputy Sink‘s sergeant of the 

complaints. (Reynolds Depo. 43:6-10.) Although this complaint may not have been conveyed to 

Deputy Sink, this one incident is not enough to show that the department had a policy of not 

investigating complaints and supervising the deputies. See Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918. 

There was one citizen‘s complaint made against Deputy Sink in December 2012 that was 

referred to Internal Affairs. (UF 83-84.) As discussed above, Fresno County Sheriff‘s 

Department has procedures for the filing and investigation of citizen‘s complaints. Internal 

Affairs returned the investigation of the December 2012 citizen complaint to the bureau, so it 

was sent back to the bureau from which it originated and Sgt. Lopez conducted that 

investigation. (Lopez Depo. 47:12-48:10.) Sgt. Lopez interviewed the complainant and the 

complainant stated that Deputy Sink‘s tone was not called for and was rude and bitchy. (Lopez 

Depo. 48:11-49:8.) After speaking to the complainant, Sgt. Lopez spoke to Deputy Sink, but 

she did not recall the incident. (Lopez Depo. 49:13-18.) The complaint was not sustained. (UF 

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 22 of 24
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

23

86.) 

Therefore, there is evidence in the record that Deputy Sink‘s supervisor, Sgt. Lopez,

spoke to her about the post-incident jury complaints. There is also evidence that the December 

2012 citizen‘s complaint against Deputy Sink was investigated according to Fresno County 

Sheriff‘s Department procedures. Although Deputy Sink was not told about Judge Ellison‘s 

complaint and Lt. Reynolds did not conduct further follow-up on this compliant with Judge 

Ellison, one incident is not sufficient to show that the department had a policy of not 

investigating complaints and supervising the deputies. See Trevino, 99 F.3d at 918. Plaintiff has 

not presented any evidence to contradict this. Therefore, the Court finds that the post-incident 

complaints do not support Plaintiff‘s claim that Fresno County failed to adequately investigate, 

discipline, or supervise employees.

3. Plaintiff Has Not Established a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact

As discussed above, once Fresno County met its initial burden, the burden shifted to the 

Plaintiff to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the 

Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department had a custom or policy that was indifferent to Fourth 

Amendment rights‘ not to be subject to excessive and unreasonable force, not to be unlawfully 

detained without a reasonable basis, and not to be falsely arrested without probable cause. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that a genuine issue of 

material fact exists as to the Monell claim regarding excessive force, unlawful arrest, and 

unlawful detaining in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since Plaintiff has failed to establish 

this element of his Fourth Amendment Monell claims, Fresno County is entitled to partial 

summary judgment on the Monell liability claim (fifth claim) regarding excessive force, 

unlawful arrest, and unlawful detaining in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

V.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Fresno County‘s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 23 of 24
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

24

IN PART as follows:

a. Summary judgment is granted on the fifth claim for relief for municipal liability 

regarding excessive force and unlawful arrest claims in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; 

b. Summary judgment is denied on the fifth claim for municipal liability regarding

retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to question, challenge, and 

address authority.

2. The fifth claim for relief is proceeding only on the municipal liability claim

regarding retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to question, 

challenge, and address authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/02/16 Page 24 of 24