Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00541/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00541-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Caitlin Bartness Wilenchik,

Plaintiff,

v.

Michael Ryan, et al.,

Defendant.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-10-541-TUC-DCB (GEE)

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of

this Court for hearing and a Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommends, after hearing oral argument,

that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. The Defendants filed

Objections to this Recommendation and Plaintiff filed a Response to the

Objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

Defendants generally object to all of the legal and evidentiary

conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation. Defendants

Case 4:10-cv-00541-JGZ-LAB Document 14 Filed 01/25/11 Page 1 of 3
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

objected that the Magistrate “effectively ruled that each and every

allegation asserted as a federal claim states a claim for a

constitutional violation... The Complaint states nothing more than some

form of ‘unconstitutional unpleasantness’, not a claim for any 4th

Amendment violation not subject to qualified immunity protection on its

face.” Defendant further objects that the force was not excessive on the

face of the complaint and the stop and detention raised no question of

facts. In addition, “Plaintiff, plainly, has not stated enough facts

with allegations that the officer acted on a long standing practice or

custom of the City of Tucson.”

DISCUSSION 

 This Court agrees with Plaintiff that the facts should be viewed

as a “totality of the circumstances.” Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d

689 (9th Cir.2005). The Report and Recommendation advised that

“[a]lthough the plaintiff’s injuries were not extensive, her allegations

are sufficient to make out a claim for excessive force. Assuming the

plaintiff’s allegations are true, the defendant officer is not entitled

to qualified immunity.” This Court must treat all factual allegations

raised in the complaint as true for purposes of resolving a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim of excessive use of force.

Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979, 984 (9th Cir.

2000). Plaintiff’s Complaint states an excessive use of force claim

against the Defendant police officer, as well as the Defendant City of

Tucson for maintaining an official municipal policy of some nature such

that a constitutional tort may result. Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d

1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 932 (1993).

Case 4:10-cv-00541-JGZ-LAB Document 14 Filed 01/25/11 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc. 12) raised by the

Defendants are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 3)

is DENIED. Defendants should file an Answer on or before February 11,

2011. This matter is hereby referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

all manner of pretrial management pursuant to LRCiv 72.1 and 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1). 

DATED this 24th day of January, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00541-JGZ-LAB Document 14 Filed 01/25/11 Page 3 of 3