Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00661-11/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANTHONY RENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

POLICE OFFICER MARCUS K.

TAFOYA, POLICE SGT. MIKE

MANFREDI, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN

DOES 1029 AND THE CITY OF

FRESNO,

Defendants.

1:05-CV-00661 OWW/DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CITY OF FRESNO, MARCUS TAFOYA

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, OR

ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ AND REBECCA

RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, MARCUS TAFOYA,

individually and as an officer

of the Fresno Police

Department; and DOES 1 through

50,

Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendants City of Fresno and Marcus Tafoya (“Tafoya”) move

for judgment on the pleadings, or alternatively, for summary

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 12
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

adjudication on Plaintiffs’ fourth claim for direct negligence

under state law. (Doc. 61, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,

Filed June 19, 2006.) Plaintiffs Gabriel Rodriguez and Rebecca

Rodriguez (“Rodriguez Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. (Doc. 71,

Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Filed July 10, 2006.) 

2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Rodriguez Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 5,

2005. (05-CV-01017, Doc. 1., Complaint (“Rodriguez complaint”).) 

Defendants filed an answer to the Rodriguez complaint on August

30, 2005. (05-CV-01017, Doc. 8., Answer.) On June 2, 2006 the

Rodriguez case was consolidated with Rendon v. City of Fresno, et

al., 05-CV-00661 for trial purposes. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 50,

Order Consolidating, Filed June 2, 2006.) 

Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in

the alternative a Motion for Summary Adjudication against the

Rodriguez Plaintiffs. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 61, Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings, Filed July 19, 2006.) On July 10, 2006, the

Rodriguez Plaintiffs opposed the motion. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 71,

Plaintiffs’ Opposition.) On July 17, 2006, Defendants filed a

reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. (05-CV-00661, Doc. 85,

Defendants’ Reply.)

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On the evening of March 5, 2005, the Rodriguez plaintiffs

attended a party at 4519 East Mono Avenue (“the residence”) in

Fresno. (Doc. 61, Decl. of James D. Weakly (“Weakly Decl.”), Ex.

A, ¶8, Filed June 19, 2006.) Law enforcement officers, Manfredi

and Tafoya responded to a disturbance call and arrived at the

residence around midnight on March 5, 2005. (Doc. 74, Decl. of

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 12
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

Ken Brakebill (“Brakebill Decl.”), Ex. D, 94:19-96:13, Filed July

10, 2005.) Plaintiffs allege that Manfredi was Tafoya’s

supervisor during the evening and incident in question. (Id.,

Ex. C, 77:26-78:7.) When Manfredi and Tafoya arrived at the

residence, the Rodriguez Plaintiffs allege that they were inside

the house engaged in conversation with each other. (Weakly Decl,

Ex. A, ¶9.) Within moments of Manfredi and Tafoya’s arrival,

Officer Tafoya allegedly ran through the front doorway waving his

baton in the air and shouting at people. (Id. at ¶10; Brakebill

Decl., Ex. A, 82:3-91:9) Officer Tafoya allegedly approached

Plaintiff Gabriel Rodriguez and, without justification, struck

him numerous times with his baton using full force, causing his

head to burst open and start gushing blood. (Id. at ¶11;

Brakebill Decl., Ex. B, 70:15-72:13.) Officer Tafoya then,

struck Plaintiff Rebecca Rodriguez numerous times in the legs,

arms and back with his baton. (Id. at ¶12; Brakebill Decl., Ex.

B, 70:15-72:13.)

Officer Tafoya at all times relevant to this lawsuit was

employed by the Fresno Police Department and was acting within

the scope of his employment. (UMF, No. 6.) The Fresno Police

Department is part of Defendant City of Fresno. (UMF, No. 7.) 

Plaintiffs brought a § 1983 claim against Defendants

alleging a violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

(Weakly Decl, Ex. A, ¶¶24-26.) Jurisdiction in this case is

based on a federal question. Plaintiffs also brought several

state law causes of action including assault and battery, false

arrest, and negligence. (Id., ¶¶27-33.) Plaintiffs’ negligence

claim is their Fourth Cause of Action under “state law.” (UMF

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 12
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

 Plaintiffs’ negligence claims based on Tafoya’s negligent 1

use of a baton to strike Gabriel Rodriguez and Rebecca Rodriguez

are not in issue in this motion. 

4

No.1.) The Rodriguez Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were

negligent in performing their duties and failed, neglected,

and/or refused to properly and fully discharge their

responsibility by: 

1. Entering the house without just cause

2. Using a baton to strike Gabriel

Rodriguez inside the house

3. Using a baton to strike Rebecca

Rodriguez inside the house

4. Failing to devote a reasonable and

sufficient amount of time and service to

training and supervising the individual

law enforcement officer defendants

regarding the use of force

5. Failing to devote a reasonable and

sufficient amount of time and service to

training and supervising the individual

law enforcement officer defendants

regarding arresting and detaining

individuals 

(UMF, No. 2.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were negligent 1

and as a result of their actions, have caused physical and

emotional damages to the Rodriguez Plaintiffs which include any

and all special damages pled. (UMF, No. 3.) Plaintiffs’ claim

for special damages includes but is not limited to lost wages,

any and all medical expenses incurred to treat the injuries of

the Rodriguez Plaintiffs, and bond costs incurred in connection

with the false arrest of Gabriel Rodriguez. (UMF No. 4.) No

amendments to the complaint have been made. (UMF No. 5.) 

Plaintiffs argue that they are still in the process of

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 12
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

 Discovery closed on May 15, 2006. (Doc. 45, Scheduling 2

Order, Filed February 21, 2006.) 

 The parties conceded at oral argument that the Rodriguez 3

Plaintiffs filed a section 815.2 grievance against Defendants

prior to filing this lawsuit. 

5

reviewing many new files the City of Fresno produced in June

during the two weeks following the close of discovery. (05-CV- 2

00661, Doc. 71, Plaintiffs’ Opposition.) Plaintiffs claim that

the City produced nearly 700 pages of additional documents two

weeks after discovery closed, and more than twice the number of

documents the city produced during discovery. Included in the

new productions were sixteen complaints lodged against Tafoya. 

Ten of the complaints relate to incidents that occurred before

the March 5, 2006 incident. Plaintiffs argue that they are

entitled to maintain a direct negligence claim against defendants

under Cal. Gov. Code section 815.2(a). 

3

4. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A. Supplemental Jurisdiction 

Title 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) provides in pertinent part:

“In any civil action of which the district courts have

original jurisdiction, the district court shall have

supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that

are so related to the claims in the action within such

original jurisdiction that they form part of the same

case or controversy under Article III of the United

States Constitution.” 

Jurisdiction in this case is based on a federal question. 

The Rodriguez Plaintiffs allege a § 1983 claim for violation of

their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Allen’s state law claims

invoke supplemental jurisdiction and arise from the same

controversy as her § 1983 claim. 

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 5 of 12
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

B. Standard

A Rule 12(c) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the

opposing party's pleadings after the pleadings are closed. 

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when, even if all

material facts in the pleading under attack are true, the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Honey v.

Distelrath, 195 F.3d 531, 532 (9th Cir. 1999)(citing Nelson v.

City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.1998)). The court

must assume the truthfulness of the material facts alleged in the

complaint. All inferences reasonably drawn from these facts must

be construed in favor of the responding party. Westlands Water

Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal, 10 F.3d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1993)(citing

NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986). The

motion will be granted if, accepting as true all material

allegation contained in the non moving party’s pleadings, the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Torbet

v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). 

If matters outside of the pleadings are presented to and not

excluded by the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings,

the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(c). Nevertheless, a court may take judicial notice of

matters of public record, including "records and reports of

administrative bodies" without converting the motion to one for

summary judgment. See, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors,

Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)(overruled on other

grounds). 

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 6 of 12
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

C. Discussion

I. Plaintiffs Cannot Maintain A Direct Negligence

Claim Against the City of Fresno

Except as otherwise provided by statute a public entity is

not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an

act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any

other person. Cal. Gov. Code § 815(a); see also, County of Los

Angeles v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 4th 627, 637 (Cal. Ct.

App. 2002); Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority, 31

Cal. 4th 1175, 1183 (2003). 

Plaintiffs make several allegations to support their

negligence claim against Defendants City of Fresno. Among their

allegations, Plaintiffs claim that the city of Fresno was

negligent in performing its duties based on the following

reasons: 1. Failing to devote a reasonable and sufficient amount

of time and service to training and supervising the individual

law enforcement officer defendants regarding the use of force and

2. Failing to devote a reasonable and sufficient amount of time

and service to training and supervising the individual law

enforcement officer defendants regarding arresting and detaining

individuals. These claims are not directed at Tafoya

individually and no other employee of the Fresno Police

Department has been identified. Defendants argue that these

allegations amount to a direct negligence claim against the City

of Fresno which cannot be maintained. Direct tort liability of

public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring

them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of

care. Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1077, 1112

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 7 of 12
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

(Cal. Ct. App. 2004). Plaintiffs point to no statute that

establishes a direct liability claim against the City of Fresno. 

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs clarify that they are not

bringing a direct negligence claim against the City of Fresno but

rather a claim under the theory of vicarious liability based on

the acts of Tafoya. However, to maintain an claim for negligence

based on negligent training and supervision claims, Plaintiffs

must identify an employee for the City of Fresno against whom the

claims may be maintained. Plaintiffs fail to identify any such

employee and agree to dismiss the negligence claims relating to

the training and supervision of law enforcement officers without

prejudice.

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claim against the

City of Fresno is GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. 

ii. Plaintiffs’ May Bring a Claim Against the City of

Fresno under a Theory of Vicarious Liability for

the Alleged Negligence of Officer Tafoya

Under the Tort Claims Act, public employees are liable for

injuries caused by their acts and omissions to the same extent as

private persons. Cal. Gov. Code § 820; Zelig v. County of Los

Angeles, 27 Cal. 4th 1112, 1128 (Cal. 2002). A public entity may

be derivatively liable under certain circumstances for acts or

omissions of employees. Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2; see also, County

of Los Angeles, 102 Cal. App. at 633. A public entity is liable

for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an

employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment

if the act or omission would have given rise to a cause of action

against that employee or his personal representative. Gov. Code

§ 815.2; see also, County of Los Angeles, 102 Cal. App. at 633-

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 8 of 12
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

644. Government Code section 815.2 thus imposes upon public

entities vicarious liability for the tortious acts and omissions

of their employees. County of Los Angeles, 102 Cal. App. at 644. 

A municipality’s failure to train an employee who has caused a

constitutional violation can be the basis for liability. See Long

v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiffs refer to Tafoya as an employee of the City of

Fresno in their complaint and allege that he breached his duty of

care towards them. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Tafoya

ran through the door “waving his baton in the air and shouting at

people.” Plaintiffs further allege that Tafoya approached

Plaintiff Gabriel Rodriguez and struck him multiple times,

causing his head to burst open and start gushing blood. 

Plaintiffs also allege that Tafoya “continued to hit Gabriel and

proceeded to strike Rebecca numerous times in the legs, arms and

back with his baton.” Defendants recognized that, as pleaded,

Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against the City of Fresno may be

brought under a theory of vicarious liability. Cal. Gov. Code

section 815.2(a); see also, Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32

Cal. 4th 820, 835 (Cal. 2004)(internal citations omitted). In a

motion for judgment on the pleadings, just as in a motion to

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs’ allegations 

must be assumed as true. It cannot be said that Defendant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A law enforcement

officer has a duty not to use unreasonable and excessive force

that injures persons without justification. The city cannot be

liable for the negligence of its employees absent a waiver of

sovereign immunity. 

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 9 of 12
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

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing

Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the City of Fresno is

DENIED. 

ii. Plaintiffs Cannot Maintain a Negligence Claim

Against Tafoya Based on Entrance Without Just

Cause.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs make a confusing allegation

that Tafoya was negligent for entering the residence without just

cause. 

Actionable negligence is traditionally regarded as

involving: 1. a legal duty to use due care, 2. a breach of that

duty, 3. that proximately or legally caused of the resulting

injury. Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1193,

1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002.) Under general negligence principles a

person ordinarily is obligated to exercise due care in his or her

own actions so as not to create an unreasonable risk of injury to

others. Zelig, 27 Cal. 4th at 1128. Liability may be imposed if

an officer undertakes affirmative acts that increase the risk of

harm to the plaintiff. Id. at 1129. However, Plaintiffs do not

allege any facts to show how Tafoya’s affirmative act of merely

entering into the residence on March 5, 2005 increased their risk

of harm. Defendants correctly argue that Tafoya’s mere entry

into the residence, in and of itself, does not involve the

forseeability of harm to Plaintiffs. 

Though not alleged, Plaintiffs’ claims sound more as a

trespass action. The essence of a cause of action for trespass

is an unauthorized entry onto the land of another. Martin

Marietta Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 40 Cal. App.

4th 1113, 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). Trespass may be by personal

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 10 of 12
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

intrusion of the wrongdoer or by his failure to leave. Id. 

However, Plaintiffs do not allege that they own, possess, or

control the residence where the entity and events took place to

give them standing to bring a trespass action against Tafoya. 

Lastly, Plaintiffs also do not make a claim for unlawful

entry under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects

the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects. United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427,

1429 (9th Cir. 1990). However, Defendants correctly argue that

Fourth Amendment rights are constitutional and cannot be asserted

vicariously. United States v. Silva, 247 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th

Cir. 2001). In order to claim the protections of the Fourth

Amendment, Plaintiffs must establish that they had an expectation

of privacy in the home and that their expectation was reasonable. 

Id. Plaintiffs fail to allege facts to make such a showing. 

Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the negligence claim against

Tafoya based solely on the allegation of entry without just

cause. However, Plaintiffs argue that they do not waive any

right to argue or present facts that Tafoya’s entry into the

house was justified or that what Tafoya did immediately upon

entering into the house was justified. This argument raises an

evidentiary issue that is better addressed with a discovery

motion, such as a motion in limine, or during trial. 

Judgment as to Plaintiffs negligence claim based on Tafoya’s

entry into the residence without just cause is GRANTED IN FAVOR

OF DEFENDANTS. 

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 11 of 12
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

5. CONCLUSION

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claim against the

City of Fresno is ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. 

Judgment on Plaintiffs negligence claim for vicarious

liability against the City of Fresno is ENTERED IN FAVOR OF

PLAINTIFFS AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS. 

Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim based on

Tafoya’s entry without just cause is ENTERED IN FAVOR OF

DEFENDANTS. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00661-OWW -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/18/06 Page 12 of 12