Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00535/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00535-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 The court notes that Plaintiffs named City of Concord Detective James Nakayama as a

defendant in their First Amended Complaint, but they have omitted him as a defendant in the Second

Amended Complaint. In light of Plaintiffs’ abandonment of claims against Mr. Nakayama, and

Plaintiffs’ failure to address this issue, which was noted in the Concord Defendants’ motion, in their

opposition, the court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Nakayama from this action. 

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

JOHN BURNS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CONCORD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 14-00535 LB

ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF Nos. 71, 72, 73]

INTRODUCTION

In this action, Plaintiffs John Burns, Tammy Burns, the Estate of Charles Burns, and Bobby

Lawrence sued 22 Defendants, who can be broken up into three groups: (1) the City of Concord,

City of Concord Police Chief Guy Swanger, City of Concord Police Detectives Chris Loercher and

Tom Parodi, and City of Concord Police Officers Mike Hansen, Steven White, Brad Giacobazzi,

Danny Smith, Eduardo Montero, Steven Price, Jason Passama, Paul Miovas, Matt Cain, and

Matthew Switzer (collectively, the “Concord Defendants”)1

; (2) the City of Antioch, City of Antioch

Police Chief Allan Cantando, and City of Antioch Police Officer James Stenger (collectively, the

“Antioch Defendants”); and (3) Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiffs named 21 Defendants in their Second Amended Complaint. In their Third

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs named Kevin Bell as a Defendant as well. 

3

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

2

Peterson, Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office employee Barry Grove, Contra Costa

County Deputy District Attorney Kevin Bell2

, and Contra Costa County Inspector John Conaty

(collectively, the “Contra Costa Defendants”). (Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), ¶¶ 9-31, ECF

No. 70.3

) Plaintiffs also sued Does 1-60, which includes an unnamed City of Concord Police Officer

referred to as Doe 1. (Id. ¶ 9(b).) Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of

Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and claims arising under state law. (Id. ¶¶ 59-

173.) All three groups of Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. 

(Concord Motion, ECF No. 71; Antioch Motion, ECF No. 72; Contra Costa Motion, ECF No. 73.) 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court found this matter suitable for determination without

oral argument and vacated the March 12, 2015 hearing. (3/9/2015 Clerk’s Notice, ECF No. 81.) 

Upon consideration of the record in this case, the parties’ moving papers, and the applicable legal

authority, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motions as follows.

STATEMENT

I. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS

According to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, on May 10, 2013, officers of the Concord

police department shot and killed Charles Burns, who was John Burns’s and Tammy Burns’s son, in

Antioch, California. (TAC ¶¶ 3, 8-9, 33.) Essentially, their story is as follows.

On May 10, 2013, thirteen Concord police officers, acting with the permission of the City of

Antioch and with the knowledge and assistance of Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney

Kevin Bell, “planned a surveillance and undercover operation with the intent of arresting and

harming Charles Burns.” (Id. ¶ 34.) On that day, Charles Burns and Mr. Lawrence went to WalMart to buy a “stereo harness” and a Mother’s Day card. (Id.) They were in Mr. Lawrence’s car,

and Mr. Lawrence was driving. (Id.) “Inexplicably,” an undercover Concord police officer drove an

unmarked vehicle in a threatening manner toward Mr. Lawrence’s car to block its movement. (Id.) 

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

3

Mr. Lawrence and Charles Burns did not know that a police officer was driving the vehicle, and the

officer made no attempt to identify himself as such. (Id.) Not knowing the situation and perceiving

danger, Mr. Lawrence drove down the street to safety. (Id.) As he did, an undercover officer

driving another unmarked vehicle rammed Mr. Lawrence’s car. (Id.) Mr. Lawrence tried to avoid

the vehicle and continue down the path towards safety when another undercover officer driving an

unmarked vehicle rammed his car. (Id.) As he rounded Barcelona Circle in Antioch, one of the

undercover officers in an unmarked car continued to ram him from the rear. (Id.) At no time did

any of the officers take any action to identify themselves or indicate that the vehicles they were

driving as associated in any way with a police agency. (Id.) It was not until Mr. Lawrence reached

the stop sign at the end of the circle that, for the first time, there was any identification that the

assailants were police officers. (Id.) When that happened, Mr. Lawrence stopped the vehicle, which

was then rammed again by the undercover officer driving behind Mr. Lawrence. (Id.) Mr.

Lawrence held his hands up and outside the driver’s side window in plain view of the officers, thus

surrendering to them. (Id.) 

Charles Burns, the passenger, got out of the car and jogged slow approximately 20 feet to the

middle of the road, where he then stopped at the direction of the police officers. (Id.) He was not

armed, carried no weapon or anything that could be construed as a weapon, and took no aggressive

action; instead, he yielded to the officers, cowered his shoulders, and put his hands up. (Id.) Three

Concord police officers lined up in firing squad fashion. (Id.) They were flanked by two additional

Concord Police officers, Chris Loercher and unnamed officer. (Id.) Multiple officers “unloaded

their weapons” on the defenseless Mr. Burns with full intent to shoot him. (Id.) Officers Loercher

and the unnamed officer admitted to shooting Mr. Burns. (Id.) The Concord police officers

continued to shoot him even though he was “laying lifeless or near lifeless on the ground,” including

shooting a bullet through the top of his skull and through his brain. (Id.) Concord police officer

Matthew Switzer then released a K-9 dog to further maim Charles Burns’s body. (Id.) Finally,

another Concord police officer walked over to Charles Burns’s body, stood over it, and fired an

additional two rounds into it “out of pure malice and spite.” (Id.) 

Mr. Bell was present and “a few feet away” when Charles Burns was shot. (Id. ¶ 36.) Neither

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

4

he, nor any Concord police officer, “took any action whatsoever to stop, intervene, call out, take

control, or any other action to prevent the killing of Charles Burns,” or “to aid Charles Burns by

providing medical care, or contacting medical care,” even though they could have “[a]t any point in

time.” (Id. ¶¶ 37-38.) “[R]ather[,] they all stood by and participated as the other persons present

continued to shoot the hapless [Charles] Burns.” (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Bell “was

acting consistent with a ‘police officer’ function of investigation as opposed to his prosecutorial

function.’” (Id. ¶ 20.)

While all of this was happening to Charles Burns, Concord police officers pulled Mr. Lawrence

out of his car, physically and verbally threatened him, dragged him across the street, and shoved him

into a fence where he was held down, “roughed up,” and ridiculed despite not resisting them. (Id. ¶

39.) They did this to him “to interfere with his ability to witness the events being undertaken by the

Concord Police Officers to kill Charles Burns.” (Id.) Then, he was arrested without legal cause and

taken to the Antioch police station “where Concord and Antioch officers, and representatives from

the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office held him without legal justification and against

his will, and subjected him to aggressive and unwarranted harassment in an effort to elicit false and

misleading information from him. (Id. ¶ 40.) Concord Police Detective Parodi, Antioch Police

Officer Stenger, and Contra Costa County Inspector Conaty screamed at and intimidated Mr.

Lawrence, who was under the age of 20, in an attempt to get him to provide a statement that “would

conceal the true unlawful and heinous conduct of the officers and cast blame on [Mr.] Lawrence and

[Charles] Burns.” (Id.) Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office employee Barry Grove also

was present “and provided assistance, oversaw[,] and supervised” Detective Parodi, Officer Stenger,

and Inspector Conaty. (Id.) All four men knew that Mr. Lawrence was being illegally detained but

none of them “intervened, [took] control, stopped[,] or prevented” this from occurring, even though

any of them could have. (Id.) Chief Contando, Chief Swanger, and District Attorney Peterson also

knew about this, and they too failed to take any action to intervene or to prevent further

constitutional violations. (Id. ¶ 71.) Mr. Lawrence thus “was subjected to hours of unlawful and

disturbing interrogation and ultimately released after having to post bail.” (Id. ¶ 40.) During this

interrogation, and under Mr. Grove’s direction, Detective Parodi, Officer Stenger, and Inspector

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

5

Conaty recorded the interview with a digital recording device, but they stopped and started the

recording several times during the course of the interview. (Id. ¶ 41.) “By doing so, they fabricated

a statement that contains information out of context by piecing together different portions of the

recording, in order to produce a statement that would attempt to justify the conduct of the offending

officers.” (Id.) “They then produced a falsified written investigative report in order to cover-up the

illegal conduct of their fellow law ‘enforcement’ personnel.” (Id.) 

Plaintiffs allege (for the first time in their Third Amended Complaint) that “[p]rior to the killing

of Charles Burns, law enforcement . . . made threats to his family that law enforcement was going to

shoot him.” (Id. ¶ 64(c).) They also allege that “[w]ithin days prior to the killing of Charles Burns,

the Concord Officer Defendants (defined as including Detective Loercher (but not Detective Parodi),

Officers Hansen, White, Giocabazzi, Smith, Montero, Price, Passama, Miovas, Cain, and Switzer,

and Doe 1) and Mr. Bell “met and planned to take down . . . [Charles] Burns, and such planning

included the use of lethal force when faced with any level of hesitation on the part of [Charles]

Burns.” (Id. ¶ 64(d).) They “sought to justify their conduct by trumping up the level of

sophistication and criminality of the conduct of [Charles] Burns” and by using false information to

get, with Mr. Bell’s assistance, a warrant for Charles Burns’s arrest. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that

“[t]he tactics utilized in this case were not the straightforward product of good police practices, but

rather were falsely conceived with the intent to justify the use of excessive force up to and including

lethal force against Charles Burns, when such use would not otherwise be necessary [or] required . .

. to arrest [him].” (Id. ¶ 64(e).) Then, on the day Charles Burns was killed, the Concord Officer

Defendants (without Mr. Bell) had a meeting in which they discussed exactly how they were going

to “execute the deliberate killing of Charles Burns later that night.” (Id. ¶ 64(g).) 

Plaintiffs also allege that, after Charles Burns was killed and Mr. Lawrence was arrested, the

officers at the Antioch Police Department along with the Concord Police Offices and the Contra

Costa District Attorney’s office then undertook to fabricate information related to the shooting to

protect the officers involved and to conceal their illegal conduct. (Id. ¶ 42.) The allegations that

follow in the complaint specify the following about the alleged conspiracy to (1) protect the Concord

police officers who were involved in the shooting of Charles Burns, (2) delay the subsequent

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

6

investigation of the shooting, and (3) conceal the facts surrounding the events under a “shroud of

secrecy.” (See id. ¶¶ 42-47.) Specifically:

• “Immediately prior to initiating the take down of Charles Burns, [the Concord Officer

Defendants] secured the streets surrounding [Charles] Burns[’s] home so that there would be

no witnesses to their acts.” (Id. ¶ 64(h).) They also arrived at the scene early, were “in

constant communication” and “in constant movement to strategically place themselves,

conduct surveillance, and deliberate the preconceived course of attack over ‘open air’ radio

and/or walkie-talkie communication.” (Id.) 

• The Concord police officers, along with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office

and officers of the Antioch Police Department, “did not follow proper and reasonable police

practices in obtaining statements and preserving evidence related to the shooting” of Charles

Burns, “purposely did not obtain [or] preserve surveillance and officer obtained video” or

video record “all interviews in order to conceal the truth and to conceal their illegal tactics in

eliciting information,” and did not canvass the neighborhood to determine if neighbors had

witnessed the events.” (Id. ¶ 42.) 

• Representatives from the Antioch Police Department and the Contra Costa District Attorney’s

Office were involved with the investigation and the illegal prolonged detention and arrest of

Mr. Lawrence, and they actively participated in the cover-up. “At all times, officers from

each agency and the district attorney’s office engaged in the unlawful conduct personally and

at other times stood by and watched and did not intervene despite a duty” to do so. (Id. ¶ 42.) 

• “[S]everal Concord Police Officers acted in concert with the Antioch Police Department, the

Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s

Criminalist District to secure the scene and Charles Burns’[s] body in an effort to conceal

their unlawful and malicious conduct.” (Id. ¶ 43.) 

• Defendants made no effort to provide emergency aid to Charles Burns or to contact any third

party emergency aid provider prior to his death. (Id. ¶ 44.) In fact, “[e]mergency [m]edical

providers were purposefully delayed to allow [Defendants] to commence their cover-up

efforts and begin planting evidence.” (Id. ¶ 91.) 

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

7

• “[I]n an effort to corroborate the fabricated information that [Charles] Burns was reaching for

his waistline,” “one or more officers planted non-prescribed pills on [Charles] Burns[’s] body

so that they would be found during the autopsy.” (Id. ¶ 97.) 

• “Shortly after the killing, [Mr.] Grove, the representative of the District Attorney’s [O]ffice

(the District Attorney Point Man)[,] showed up on scene[,] and one by one the [Concord

police officers] entered and exited the vehicle where [Mr. Grove] was seated[,] and the

groundwork was laid for fabricating the story for public consumption and concealing the truth

regarding the killing of Charles Burns.” (Id. ¶ 44.)

• Detective Parodi, Officer Stenger, and Inspector Conaty, under the direction of Mr. Grove and

along with “other defendants,” “placed the involved officers in the comfort and solace of hotel

rooms while they determined the information known to others and then sought . . . to fabricate

the events of the evening” through their interrogation of Mr. Lawrence. (Id. ¶ 45.) 

• Detective Parodi, Officer Stenger, Inspector Conaty, and Mr. Grove “coach[ed] the officers to

provide statements consistent with a theory exculpating the officers from their willful killing

of Charles Burns,” “rehearsed their statements[,] and then recorded the statements in a manner

to optimize a fabricated version of events.” (Id. ¶ 45.) 

• Mr. Bell, who was a passenger in Concord Police Office Hansen’s vehicle at the time Charles

Burns was killed, “assisted the officers engaged in the cover-up by agreeing to and providing”

a false statement about the shooting “which failed to contradict the officers[’] rendition of

events, in particular the locations [Charles] Burns[’s] hands and the manner of the shooting

and deployment of the K-9.” (Id. ¶ 86(f).) He also “used his position and resources with the

District Attorney’s office to provide information which was used by” City of Concord Police

Officer Mike Hansen “to overstate the history of criminality of Charles Burns, to overstate the

level of criminal sophistication of Charles Burns, [and] to overstate the risks and dangers

associated with the execution of the warrant in order to justify use of excessive resources and

excessive force.” (Id. ¶ 86(d).) 

• The Concord Police Department has at no time since Charles Burns’s death “sought to gain

information inculpating the officers in wrongful conduct or search[ed] for the truth.” (Id. ¶

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

8

46.) 

• A “shroud of secrecy” has surrounded the case and investigation. Concord and Antioch

police officers “took at least 6 months to carry out the coordinated effort to complete their

reports, and [they] did so as a concerted action with representatives from the Contra Costa

County District Attorney’s Office.” (Id. ¶ 47.) 

• “Having knowledge that involving a neutral third party investigative agency would expose the

misconduct of the officers,” the Concord Police Department and the Contra Costa District

Attorney’s Office continued “their concerted effort to conceal the misconduct” by refusing to

“turn this investigation over to a neutral third party.” (Id. ¶ 50.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ concerted effort was made possible by “a County Wide law

enforcement policy called the ‘LEIFI Protocol.’” (Id. ¶ 48; see also id. ¶¶ 112-25 (alleging further

details).) “LEIFI” stands for “Law Enforcement Involved Fatality Investigation.” (Id. ¶ 112.) 

Plaintiffs allege that

The “Protocol” has been represented as being conceived as a means for deploying

multiple law enforcement agencies and resources to conduct a swift, efficient[,] and

transparent investigation involving police officer misconduct. However[,] in reality

the “Protocol” has provided the law enforcement community in Contra Costa County

with a powerful tool for covering up police misconduct. The supervisors in the law

enforcement community, including Chief Swanger, Chief Conta[n]do[,] and District

Attorney Peterson have adopted and continue to employ the “Protocol” knowing that

it would serve as a means for their subordinates to work together to conceal police

misconduct and despite being aware that the “Protocol” has continually been used in

such a manner. Swanger, Conta[n]do[,] and Peterson were likewise aware that the

“Protocol” was in fact being used in the same illegal and abusive manner in this case

and despite this knowledge allowed the abusive and illegal conduct to occur. The

“Protocol” is a façade. The [“P]rotocol[”] is intended to give the appearance of

propriety by having several agencies involved in an investigation on what is supposed

to appear as a checks and balances between the various agencies. However[,] in

reality the “Protocol” is utilized in Contra Costa County as a means for establishing

conspiratorial and concerted effort by law enforcement agencies to protect one

another when officers unlawfully harm and kill citizens. This policy is consistent

with a long standing practice by law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa with the

support of the [Contra Costa County] District Attorney’s Office of engaging in

unconstitutional conduct permeating their activities under the disposition that the

“Ends Justifies the Means.” This concerted effort in this instance was further

facilitated by the fact that the [Contra Costa County] District Attorney, Mark

Peterson, received substantial donations and support from the Concord Police

Department during his campaign for the District Attorney position. In fact[,] the

Concord Police Department was the only Police Department in Contra Costa County

that endorsed his campaign for District Attorney. As a result[,] he directed his office

to take[] steps to facilitate the cover-up of the Concord Police Officer[s’] misconduct

in this case, and ignored requests by Plaintiffs to turn the investigation over to an

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 8 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

9

independent law enforcement agency.

(Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiffs further allege that “[Contra Costa County] District Attorney Mark Peterson,

Chief Swanger[,] and Chief Conta[n]do have personally authorized and maintained the existence of

the ‘Protocol’ for covering up police misconduct in general and specifically in this case by their

actions and omissions” and by their “failure to step in and hold the wrong-doers accountable for the

misconduct that occurred in this case.” (Id. ¶ 86(b).) 

Plaintiffs also allege that the City of Concord, the City of Antioch, and Contra Costa County

maintained policies and customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

individuals subjected to excessive force and other misconduct. (See id. ¶¶ 107-68.) As for the City

of Concord, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]t was the policy and/or custom of the City of Concord to

inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including the defendant Officers, thereby failing

to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.” (Id. ¶

129.) Specifically, the City of Concord “did not require appropriate in-service training or re-training

of officers” “who were known to have engaged in police misconduct involving excessive force and

false arrest” or “on issues of use of force, use of lethal force, arrest procedures, execution of

warrants, and other related duties,” like “conducting under cover investigations” and using “lethal

force [against] person accused of felonies.” (Id. ¶¶ 129, 132.) Plaintiffs allege that the City of

Concord “had prior knowledge of the propensity of the Individual Officers in this case to engage in

unlawful acts in violation of persons[’] constitutional rights” but continued to employ them

nevertheless. (Id. ¶ 133.) “[O]fficers engaged in undercover work as part of the Special

Investigations Bureau” (“SIB”) (such as City of Concord Police Detective Loercher and City of

Concord Police Officers Hansen, White, Giacobazzi, and Smith, see id. ¶ 9), “are given free reign to

engage in unconstitutional conduct which is tolerated and authorized within the department.” (Id. ¶

135.) Plaintiffs also allege that the City of Concord uses the LEIFI Protocol “for the purpose of

covering up police misconduct, including law enforcement[-]involved fatalities,” and “to protect its

officers from prosecution for their misconduct.” (Id. ¶¶ 113-14; see id. ¶ 117.) Lastly, Plaintiffs

allege that Chief Swanger, who “is a policy maker for the City of Concord,” “authorized, directed,

and ratified the actions of the Individual defendant Officers” (presumably the Concord Officer

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 9 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

10

Defendants). (Id. ¶¶ 110-11.) 

As for the City of Antioch and Contra Costa County, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]t was the policy

and/or custom” of the Antioch Police Department to inadequately supervise and train its officers,

and of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office to inadequately supervise and train its

investigators, “regarding proper and lawful police misconduct investigations, and to instruct them to

assist local law enforcement in concealing misconduct, thereby failing to adequately discourage

further constitutional violations on the part of its investigators.” (Id. ¶¶ 143, 159.) Specifically, the

Antioch Police Department and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office “did not require

appropriate in-service training or re-training of officers on the subject matter of lawful and proper

police misconduct investigations” or “on issues of use of force, use of lethal force, arrest procedures,

execution of warrants, and other related duties for which they would ordinarily be called upon to

conduct investigations.” (Id. ¶¶ 143, 147, 159, 161.) Plaintiffs allege that the Antioch Police

Department and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office “had prior knowledge of the

propensity of the Concord Police Department and Concord Police Officers to engage in unlawful

acts in violation of persons[’] constitutional rights, particularly with regard to excessive force,” “and

notwithstanding that knowledge agreed to participate in the investigation per the [LEIFI] Protocol

for the purpose of covering up the constitutional violations of the officers.” (Id. ¶¶ 148, 162.) With

respect to Contra Costa County, Plaintiffs allege that “there is a long history of tolerating the

infringements of citizens[’] constitutional rights by law enforcement agencies, supported by the

District Attorney’s Office,” like “special investigations units such as . . . East NET, CNet, and other

undercover narcotics investigation units similar to the SIB unit in this case.” (Id. ¶ 149.) Finally,

Plaintiffs allege that Chief Contando, who “is a policy maker for the City of Antioch,” “authorized,

directed[,] and ratified the actions of the Antioch Police Officers and the Concord Police Officers

acting within his jurisdiction.” (Id. ¶ 164.) They also allege that Contra Costa County District

Attorney Peterson, who “is a policy maker for the County of Contra Costa,” “authorized, directed[,]

and ratified the actions of the District Attorney’s Office Investigators.” (Id. ¶ 152.)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs instituted this action on February 4, 2014 and thereafter filed a First Amended

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 10 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

11

Complaint as a matter of right. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; FAC, ECF No. 11.) Upon Defendants’

motions, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice because it did not

comport with the notice pleading standings under Rule 8(a), in that it did not clearly specify the

specific claims against each Defendant. (7/22/2014 Order, ECF No. 46 at 5-8.) Plaintiffs thereafter

filed a Second Amended Complaint. (SAC, ECF No. 48.) Upon Defendants’ motions, the court

dismissed many (but not all) of Plaintiffs’ claims, some with prejudice and some without prejudice. 

(11/6/2014 Order, ECF No. 67.) 

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Third Amended Complaint. (TAC, ECF No. 70.) In it, they bring

nine claims, which are summarized in the chart below:

No. Claim Brought By Brought Against

1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of

“Plaintiff’s” 4th Amendment rights

to be free from unlawful seizure and

excessive force and “Plaintiff’s”

14th Amendment right to the

provision of emergency medical

care

Estate of Charles Burns “Concord Officer

Defendants” (which

Plaintiffs defined as

including Detective

Loercher (but not

Detective Parodi),

Officers Hansen, White,

Giocabazzi, Smith,

Montero, Price,

Passama, Miovas, Cain,

and Switzer, and Doe 1)

and Mr. Bell 

2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the conspiracy

to violate “Plaintiff’s” 4th

Amendment rights to be free from

unlawful seizure and excessive force

and “Plaintiff’s” 14th Amendment

right to the provision of emergency

medical care

Estate of Charles Burns “Concord Officer

Defendants” (which

Plaintiffs defined as

including Detective

Loercher (but not

Detective Parodi),

Officers Hansen, White,

Giocabazzi, Smith,

Montero, Price,

Passama, Miovas, Cain,

and Switzer, and Doe 1)

and Mr. Bell 

3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of

Mr. Lawrence’s 4th amendment

rights “by means of illegal

detention, prolonged unjustified

detention, unlawful arrest, and false

imprisonment”

Bobby Lawrence All individual, nonentity Defendants

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 11 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

12

4 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of

John Burns’s and Tammy Burns’s

14th Amendment rights to familial

association

John Burns; Tammy

Burns

“Concord Officer

Defendants” (which

Plaintiffs defined as

including Detective

Loercher (but not

Detective Parodi),

Officers Hansen, White,

Giocabazzi, Smith,

Montero, Price,

Passama, Miovas, Cain,

and Switzer, and Doe 1)

and Mr. Bell 

5 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the conspiracy

to deny court access to John Burns,

Tammy Burns, and Bobby

Lawrence 

John Burns; Tammy

Burns; Bobby Lawrence

All individual, nonentity Defendants

6 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell v.

Department of Soc. Servs., 463 U.S.

658 (1978))

All Plaintiffs City of Concord

7 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell v.

Department of Soc. Servs., 463 U.S.

658 (1978))

All Plaintiffs County of Contra Costa

8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell v.

Department of Soc. Servs., 463 U.S.

658 (1978))

All Plaintiffs City of Antioch

9 Battery Estate of Charles Burns “Concord Officer

Defendants” (which

Plaintiffs defined as

including Detective

Loercher (but not

Detective Parodi),

Officers Hansen, White,

Giocabazzi, Smith,

Montero, Price,

Passama, Miovas, Cain,

and Switzer, and Doe 1) 

The Concord Defendants, Antioch Defendants, and Contra Costa Defendants each filed motions

to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. (Concord Motion, ECF No. 71; Antioch Motion, ECF

No. 72; Contra Costa Motion, ECF No. 73.) Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions, and

Defendants filed replies. (Opposition to Concord Motion, ECF No. 76; Concord Reply, ECF No.

78; Opposition to Antioch Motion, ECF No. 75; Antioch Reply, ECF No. 79; Opposition to Contra

Costa Motion, ECF No. 77; Contra Costa Reply, ECF No. 80.) On March 9, 2015, pursuant to Civil

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 12 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

13

Local Rule 7-1(b), the court found the motions suitable for determination without oral argument and

vacated the March 12, 2015 hearing. (3/9/2015 Clerk’s Notice, ECF No. 81.) 

ANALYSIS

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A

complaint must therefore provide a defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the

grounds for relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation and

citation omitted). 

A court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when it does

not contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a

‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal

citations and parentheticals omitted). 

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If the court dismisses the complaint, it should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend

is made “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc.

v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)). But when a party

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 13 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

14

repeatedly fails to cure deficiencies, the court may order dismissal without leave to amend. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where

district court had instructed pro se plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim

with leave to amend).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Claim One

Claim One is brought by the Estate of Charles Burns against the “Concord Officer Defendants”

(who Plaintiffs define as Detective Loercher (but not Detective Parodi), Officers Hansen, White,

Giocabazzi, Smith, Montero, Price, Passama, Miovas, Cain, and Switzer, and Doe 1), and Mr. Bell. 

The Estate of Charles Burns brings the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of the Estate

of Charles Burns’s 4th Amendment rights to be free from unlawful seizure and excessive force and

the Estate of Charles Burns’s 14th Amendment right to the provision of emergency medical care. 

The Concord Officer Defendants do not move to dismiss this claim, but Mr. Bell does. He

argues that Plaintiffs allege only that he was there when Charles Burns was killed and Mr. Lawrence

was arrested, but they do not, and cannot, allege that he caused the constitutional violations. 

A defendant may be liable to a plaintiff in a section 1983 action if the defendant “subject[ed], or

cause[ed] to be subjected,” the plaintiff to the deprivation of his constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. §

1983; see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In a § 1983

action, the plaintiff must . . . demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of

the claimed injury.”) (citing Arnold v. IBM Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981)). To meet

this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact (which is sometimes

also known as actual causation), and proximate causation (which is sometimes also known as legal

causation). Harper, 533 F.3d at 1026 (citing Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 837 (9th

Cir. 1996); Arnold, 637 F.2d at 1355). “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus

on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). As

the Ninth Circuit has explained:

 A person “subjects” another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 14 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

15

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. Moreover, personal participation

is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. Anyone who ‘causes’ any citizen

to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite causal

connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation

in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

constitutional injury.

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).

It follows that “[b]eing a mere bystander” to a constitutional violation is insufficient to support

section 1983 liability. Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting “the ‘team

effort’ standard [that] allows the jury to lump all the defendants together, rather than require it to

base each individual’s liability on his own conduct”); see also Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 936

(9th Cir. 2002) (“We decline to require an instruction that would invite a jury to find all of the

officers liable for an alleged constitutional violation merely for being present at the scene of an

alleged unlawful act.”). “For instance, an officer who arrives at the scene after the unconstitutional

act is completed, or an officer who provides crowd control at the scene, are not integral

participants.” Bresaz v. County of Santa Clara, No.: 14-CV-03868-LHK, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17,

2015) (citing Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d 463, 481 n.12 (9th Cir. 2007)). “Nor is an officer who

interviews a witness in the front yard of a building, and does not participate in the unconstitutional

search of the building ‘in any fashion,’ an integral participant.” Id. (citing Hopkins, 573 F.3d at

770).

Instead, an individual’s “liability under section 1983 is predicated on his ‘integral participation’

in the alleged violation.” Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 481 n.12 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citing Chuman, 76 F.3d at 294-95). “‘[I]ntegral participation’ does not require that each officer’s

actions themselves rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d

773, 780 (9th Cir. 2004). “But it does require some fundamental involvement in the conduct that

allegedly caused the violation.” Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 481 n.12 (citing Boyd, 374 F.3d at 780)

(holding that every officer who provided armed backup for another officer who unconstitutionally

deployed a flash-bang device to gain entry to a suspect’s home could be held liable for that use of

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 15 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Contra Costa Defendants argue in their reply that “[t]here are no allegations that [Mr.]

Bell directed the actions of the Concord police officers,” see Reply, ECF No. 80 at 3, but this misses

the point. The case law does not require Mr. Bell to have “directed” the officers who committed the

alleged Fourth Amendment violation; it requires only that Mr. Bell to have been an “integral

participant” in it. 

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

16

excessive force because “every officer participated in some meaningful way” in the arrest and

“every officer was aware of the decision to use the flash-bang, did not object to it, and participated

in the search operation knowing the flashbang was to be deployed”)). 

Citing Paragraph 36 of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs argue, with respect to the

Fourth Amendment claim, that Mr. Bell “was not merely present when Charles Burns was struck

down[,] . . . he was actively involved in the planning[] and implementation of the operation.” 

(Opposition to Contra Costa Motion, ECF No. 77 at 12.) That operation “was set in motion by the

actions of [Mr.] Bell and was executed with him present.” (Id. (citing TAC ¶ 36).) On their own,

however, the allegations found in Paragraph 36 of the Third Amended Complaint are not sufficient:

Plaintiffs allege only that Mr. Bell “was personally present” when Charles Burns was killed and

“was actively involved in the planning and implementation of the operation.” (TAC, ¶ 36.) That

Mr. Bell was present at the scene does not make him a cause of the Fourth Amendment violation,

see Chuman, 76 F.3d at 294-95, and the allegation that he “was actively involved in the planning

and implementation of the operation” is vague on its own. Still, Plaintiffs’ other allegations

regarding Mr. Bell, which the court must accept as true and construe in the light most favorable to

Plaintiffs at this stage of the litigation, provide support for the claim.4

 Plaintiffs allege that the

Concord Officer Defendants “planned a surveillance and undercover operation with the intent of

arresting and harming Charles Burns” with Mr. Bell’s knowledge and assistance. (Id. ¶ 34.) They

also allege that, “[w]ithin days prior to the killing of Charles Burns,” the Concord Officer

Defendants and Mr. Bell “met and planned to take down . . . [Charles] Burns, and such planning

included the use of lethal force when faced with any level of hesitation on the part of [Charles]

Burns.” (Id. ¶ 64(d).) Part of the planning, they allege, included “trumping up the level of

sophistication and criminality of the conduct of [Charles] Burns” and using false information to get,

with Mr. Bell’s assistance, a warrant for Charles Burns’s arrest” that would “justify the use of

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 16 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

17

excessive force up to and including lethal force against Charles Burns, when such use would not

otherwise be necessary [or] required . . . to arrest [him].” (Id. ¶ 64(d)-(e); see also id. ¶ 86(d)

(alleging that Mr. Bell “used his position and resources with the District Attorney’s office to provide

information which was used by” City of Concord Police Officer Mike Hansen “to overstate the

history of criminality of Charles Burns, to overstate the level of criminal sophistication of Charles

Burns, [and] to overstate the risks and dangers associated with the execution of the warrant in order

to justify use of excessive resources and excessive force.”).) Under the applicable legal authority,

this is enough to show that Mr. Bell was an integral participant. See Boyd, 374 F.3d at 780;

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743-44. Thus, the court will not dismiss at this time the Estate of Charles

Burns’s first claim against Mr. Bell insofar as it is based on a Fourth Amendment violation.

As for the Estate of Charles Burns’s Fourteenth Amendment claim based on Mr. Bell’s alleged

deliberate indifference to Charles Burns’s medical needs, the Contra Costa Defendants argue that

Plaintiffs do not allege that he detained Charles Burns or took Charles Burns into custody, such that

Mr. Bell could be liable for such a claim. The court agrees. As one district court has summarized:

A pretrial detainee’s claim of failure to provide care for serious medical needs is

analyzed under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Simmons v. Navajo County, Az., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); Lolli v. County

of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418-419 (9th Cir. 2003); see Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106, 123 S.Ct. 872, 154

L.Ed.2d 775 (2003). “With regard to medical needs, the due process clause imposes,

at a minimum, the same duty the Eighth Amendment imposes: ‘persons in custody

ha[ve] the established right to not have officials remain deliberately indifferent to

their serious medical needs.’” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187 (quoting Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Under the Eighth Amendment’s standard of

deliberate indifference, a person is liable for denying a prisoner needed medical care

only if the person ‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and

safety.’” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837,

114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)).

The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a

serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain,’” and (2) “the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” 

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974

F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a

[detainee’s] pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference

may be manifested when officials “deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 17 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

18

treatment.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin 974 F.2d at 1060 (internal

quotations omitted)).

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). Indifference to “medical needs must be substantial. 

Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.

1980). Under the deliberate indifference standard, “the official must both be aware of

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct.

1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811. “But if a person is aware of a substantial risk of serious

harm, a person may be liable for neglecting a [detainee’s] serious medical needs on

the basis of either his action or his inaction.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 (alteration in

original). “A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s

pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.” 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

Lanier v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 10-1120 LJO SKO, 2010 WL 5113799, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9,

2010). 

Here, Plaintiffs allege that, even though Mr. Bell was present and “a few feet away” when

Charles Burns was shot, he did not take “any action whatsoever to stop, intervene, call out, take

control, or any other action to prevent the killing of Charles Burns” or “to aid Charles Burns by

providing medical care, or contacting medical care,” even though he could have “[a]t any point in

time.” (Id. ¶¶ 36-38.) But as the Contra Costa Defendants point out, Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr.

Bell detained Charles Burns or took Charles Burns into custody. While Plaintiffs allege that Mr.

Bell “was acting consistent with a ‘police officer’ function of investigation as opposed to his

prosecutorial function,” id. ¶ 20, Mr. Bell, as a prosecutor, does not have a “police officer” function

that would have allowed him to detain or arrest Charles Burns. In their opposition, Plaintiffs suggest

that because Mr. Bell (as they allege) participated in the unlawful seizure of and use of excessive

force against Charles Burns, Mr. Bell also can be said to have participated in the detention of

Charles Burns, see Opposition ECF No. 77 at 13, but the court does not believe that these concepts

can be equated in this situation, and Plaintiffs provide no authority suggesting otherwise. 

Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice the Estate of Charles Burns’s first claim against Mr.

Bell insofar as it is based on a Fourteenth Amendment violation. 

B. Claim Two

Claim Two is brought by the Estate of Charles Burns against the Concord Officer Defendants

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 18 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

19

(defined as described when discussing Claim One), and Mr. Bell. The Estate of Charles Burns

brings the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to violate the Estate of Charles Burns’s 4th

Amendment rights to be free from unlawful seizure and excessive force and the Estate of Charles

Burns’s 14th Amendment right to the provision of emergency medical care.

Both the Concord Officer Defendants and Mr. Bell move to dismiss this claim on the ground that

Plaintiffs simply have not sufficiently alleged a conspriracy. Although the court agreed with this

argument regarding previous iterations of the complaint, the court believes that Plaintiffs have

alleged enough this time. 

 “To establish liability for a conspiracy in a § 1983 case, a plaintiff must ‘demonstrate the

existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights.” Crowe v.

County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.3d at

1301). “Such an agreement need not be overt, and may be inferred on the basis of circumstantial

evidence such as the actions of the defendants.” Id. (quoting Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.3d at

1301) (quotation marks omitted). “Whether defendants were involved in an unlawful conspiracy is

generally a factual issue . . . .” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.3d at 1301-02 (citation omitted). 

Nevertheless, “the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the existence of the claimed

conspiracy.” Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Coverdell v. Dep’t

of Soc. and Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 769 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Maceachern v. City of

Manhattan Beach, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2009). “To be liable, each participant in

the conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share

the common objective of the conspiracy.” Crowe, 608 F.3d at 440 (quoting United Steelworkers of

Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1541 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc)) (quotation marks

omitted). In addition, a plaintiff must show that an “actual deprivation of his constitutional rights

resulted from the alleged conspiracy.” Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1071–72 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Woodrum v. Woodward County., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989)) (quotation marks

omitted).

The court believes that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient circumstantial facts to support a

conspiracy claim. As the court recounted above when discussing Claim One, Plaintiffs allege that

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 19 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

20

the Concord Officer Defendants “planned a surveillance and undercover operation with the intent of

arresting and harming Charles Burns” with Mr. Bell’s knowledge and assistance; “[w]ithin days

prior to the killing of Charles Burns,” the Concord Officer Defendants and Mr. Bell “met and

planned to take down . . . [Charles] Burns, and such planning included the use of lethal force when

faced with any level of hesitation on the part of [Charles] Burns”; and part of the planning included

“trumping up the level of sophistication and criminality of the conduct of [Charles] Burns” and

using false information to get, with Mr. Bell’s assistance, a warrant for Charles Burns’s arrest” that

would “justify the use of excessive force up to and including lethal force against Charles Burns,

when such use would not otherwise be necessary [or] required . . . to arrest [him].” (Id. ¶¶ 34, 64(d)-

(e); see also id. ¶ 86(d).) Plaintiffs also allege that “[i]mmediately prior to initiating the take down

of Charles Burns, [the Concord Officer Defendants] secured the streets surrounding [Charles]

Burns[’s] home so that there would be no witnesses to their acts.” (Id. ¶ 64(h).) In addition,

Plaintiffs allege that “[p]rior to the killing of Charles Burns, law enforcement . . . made threats to his

family that law enforcement was going to shoot him.” (Id. ¶ 64(c).) The Concord Defendants try to

minimize this allegation by pointing out that Plaintiffs do not identify who, exactly, made this threat,

and Plaintiffs respond in their opposition by saying that the threat was made by Concord Police

Officer Eduardo Montero (one of the Concord Officer Defendants). Although Plaintiffs do not

identify Officer Montero as the threat-maker in their Third Amended Complaint, the court believes

that Plaintiffs’ allegation is good enough and that it would be a waste of time and resources to

require Plaintiffs to file yet another complaint to do so. Even so, the court finds that the allegation

supports Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim anyway. 

In short, the court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations, which, again, the court must accept as true and

construe in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs at this stage of the litigation, sufficiently allege a

conspiracy claim against the Concord Officer Defendants and Mr. Bell. Assuming the allegations to

be true, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to infer that the Concord Officer Defendants and

Mr. Bell agreed to use excessive force against Charles Burns and shared that common objective,

even if all of them did not know the exact details of the plan. See Crowe, 608 F.3d at 440. This is

enough. 

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 20 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

21

C. Claim Three

Claim Three is brought by Mr. Lawrence against all of the individual, non-entity Defendants. 

Mr. Lawrence brings the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his Fourth Amendment

rights “by means of illegal detention, prolonged unjustified detention, unlawful arrest, and false

imprisonment.” None of the individual Defendants associated with the City of Concord or the City

of Antioch move to dismiss this claim, but the individual Defendants associated with Contra Costa

County—Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Conaty—move to dismiss the claim on the

ground that Plaintiffs have not alleged that they caused the constitutional violations Mr. Lawrence

complains of. 

The Contra Costa Defendants previously made this argument with respect to Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint, and the court found it persuasive. After setting forth the causation standard

for section 1983 claims, the court wrote:

The Contra Costa County Defendants say that, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations,

of the three individual Contra Costa Defendants (District Attorney Peterson, District

Attorney’s Office employee Grove, and Inspector Conaty), only Inspector Conaty had

any personal involvement with Mr. Lawrence, the only Plaintiff bringing this claim. 

They then argue that Inspector Conaty’s alleged conduct—screaming at and

intimidating Mr. Lawrence in an attempt to get him to provide a statement that

“would conceal the true unlawful and heinous conduct of the officers and cast blame

on [Mr.] Lawrence and [Charles] Burns,” and “fabricat[ing] a statement” from Mr.

Lawrence by starting and stopping a digital recording device several times and then

splicing together separate pieces of information out of their original context to

produce a “falsified written investigative report” that supported the “cover-up” of

Charles Burns’s killing—does not support a claim based on an alleged “illegal

detention, prolonged unjustified detention, unlawful arrest, and false imprisonment,”

which is what Mr. Lawrence’s claim is based upon. Inspector Conaty, they say, was

not involved with the arrest and detention of Mr. Lawrence; that was done by the

Concord Defendants and the Antioch Defendants. Inspector Conaty, on the other

hand, simply interrogated Mr. Lawrence (albeit in a manner that Mr. Lawrence did

not like) while he was being detained. 

The court agrees with the [Contra Costa County] Defendants that Plaintiffs have

not alleged that District Attorney Peterson and District Attorney’s Office employee

Grove were personally involved with the arrest and detention of Mr. Lawrence and

that Inspector Conaty’s interrogation of him does not support the claim brought by

Mr. Lawrence. In their opposition, Plaintiffs highlight their allegation that Mr. Grove

“showed up on scene and one by one the [Concord police officers] entered and exited

the vehicle where [Mr. Grove] was seated and the groundwork was laid for

fabricating the story for public consumption and concealing the truth regarding the

killing of Charles Burns,” SAC, ECF No. 48 ¶ 39, but that allegation does not bear

upon Mr. Lawrence. Plaintiffs also say that Contra Costa County Deputy District

Attorney Kevin Bell was involved in the arrest of Mr. Lawrence. See Opposition,

ECF No. 64 at 12-13. Plaintiffs did allege this, see SAC, ECF No. 48 at ¶¶ 33, 74,

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 21 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

22

but Mr. Bell is not a defendant to this claim (or this action), so it is irrelevant. Thus,

the court concludes that Claim Three must be dismissed without prejudice as to

District Attorney Peterson, District Attorney’s Office employee Grove, and Inspector

Conaty. See Shallowhorn v. Molina, 572 Fed. Appx. 545, 546 (9th Cir. May 15,

2014) (“The district court properly dismissed Shallowhorn’s claims against Warden

Hedgpeth because Shallowhorn failed to allege Hedgpeth’s personal involvement

with any constitutional violation.”) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal

involvement of the defendant.”)). . . .

(11/6/2015 Order, ECF No. 67 at 23 (footnote omitted).)

The court does not believe that Plaintiffs’ addition of Mr. Bell as a defendant to this action or

Plaintiffs’ additional allegations regarding Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Conaty

change the court’s conclusion. As for Mr. Bell, all of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Mr. Bell’s

participation relate to the acts taken against Charles Burns, not Mr. Lawrence. Plaintiffs allege that

Mr. Bell helped plan the arrest of Charles Burns by meeting with the Concord Officer Defendants

and by exaggerating Charles Burns’ dangerousness to justify an excessively large show and use of

force, but none of these allegations have anything to do with Mr. Lawrence. With respect to Mr.

Lawrence, Mr. Bell was a “mere bystander” to Mr. Lawrence’s arrest and thus is not subject to

section 1983 liability. Chuman, 76 F.3d at 294-95. As for Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, and Mr.

Conaty, Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the interrogation are not materially different than those in

the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that these Defendants “knew” that Mr. Lawrence

was being illegally detained and were “involved” with it, but Plaintiffs never allege how they knew

this or how they were involved with it. Plaintiffs allegation in this regard are completely

conclusory. In fact, as the Contra Costa County Defendants point out, Plaintiffs never allege which

agency or person arrested and detained Mr. Lawrence. Moreover, even if Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove,

and Mr. Conaty “knew” or were “aware” that Mr. Lawrence was being illegally detained, this would

not suffice for liability under section 1983 because knowledge or awareness, alone, does not

demonstrate participation. 

Accordingly, the court dismisses Mr. Lawrence’s claim against Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, Mr.

Bell, and Mr. Conaty. The court understands that Plaintiffs are trying to state claims as best they can

with the information they have. While that does now change this outcome, the court will set a

deadline for amending the pleadings to add claims or parties that allows sufficient discovery into the

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 22 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Because the court dismisses the claim against Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, Mr. Bell, and Mr.

Conaty with prejudice, the court does not address whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. 

(See Contra Costa Motion, ECF No. 73 at 17-20.)

6

 Mr. Bell says in Section IV.D of his motion that he is entitled to qualified immunity “[f]or

the same reasons discussed in Section IV.D., supra.” This does not make sense as he refers to the

same subsection. Regardless, Mr. Bell also did not argue in any previous section that Mr. Bell was

entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Bell’s (as opposed to other Defendants’) entire qualified

immunity argument is quoted above.

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

23

events of May 10, 2013 so that Plaintiffs may amend the pleadings if necessary to conform to the

evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). For now, though, the court dismisses Mr. Lawrence’s claim

without prejudice to the extent it is brought against Mr. Peterson, Mr. Grove, Mr. Bell, and Mr.

Conaty.5

D. Claim Four

Claim Four is brought by John Burns and Tammy Burns against the Concord Officer Defendants

(defined as described when discussing Claim One), and Mr. Bell. They bring this claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of their 14th Amendment rights to familial association. The Concord

Defendants do not move to dismiss this claim, but Mr. Bell does. In doing so, Mr. Bell relies on his

arguments about why Claim One and Claim Two fail. The court, however, found above that Claim

One (to the extent based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment) and Claim Two survive against

Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell also argues that even if John Burns and Tammy Burns could sufficiently allege a

claim against him, he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it would have been objectively

reasonable for [him] to believe probable cause existed for detaining a felony suspect fleeing police

officers who were attempting to serve a search warrant.” (Contra Costa Motion, ECF No. 73 at 20.) 

But as the court described above, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Bell did much more than this, and Mr.

Bell’s one-sentence qualified immunity argument does not reach nearly far enough to cover it all.6

Accordingly, the court finds that Charles Burns and Tammy Burns’ claim against Mr. Bell survives.

E. Claim Five

Claim Five is brought by John Burns, Tammy Burns, and Mr. Lawrence against all of the

individual, non-entity Defendants. They bring this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 23 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 As the Supreme Court itself has noted, “[d]ecisions of this Court have grounded the right of

access to courts in the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the First Amendment Petition

Clause, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection

and Due Process Clauses.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002) (internal

citations omitted). 

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

24

deny court access to John Burns, Tammy Burns, and Bobby Lawrence. All of the individual, nonentity Defendants move to dismiss the claim on the ground that the claim is not ripe. The court

agrees.

“The Supreme Court held long ago that the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right

protected by the Constitution.” Delew v. Wagner, 13 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing

Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)).7

 For backward-looking denial

of access claims (such as this one), where an underlying claim allegedly “cannot now be tried (or

tried with all material evidence) because official action “caused the loss or inadequate settlement of

a meritorious case, the loss of an opportunity to sue, or the loss of an opportunity to seek some

particular order of relief,” “the complaint must identify a remedy that may be awarded as

recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought.” Christopher v.

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-15 (2002). This is because “[t]here is, after all, no point in spending

time and money to establish facts constituting denial of access when a plaintiff would end up just as

well off after litigating a simpler case without the denial-of-access element.” Id. For this reason, the

Ninth Circuit has made clear that, to prevail on a backward-looking denial of access claim that is

based on a defendant’s “cover-up” of evidence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s

cover-up rendered other available remedies ineffective. Delew, 143 F.3d at 1223 (dismissing

without prejudice the plaintiff’s denial of access claim because the plaintiff was currently pursuing

an action based on the underlying claim (wrongful death) and it was not yet clear whether the

defendants’ alleged cover-up rendered that action ineffective).

A plaintiff cannot do this when an action based on the underlying claim is pending. In KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, for example, the plaintiff brought both a Fourth Amendment

unreasonable search and seizure claim and a denial of access claim. 839 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir.

1988). The denial of access claim alleged that the defendants, who also were named in the Fourth

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 24 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

25

Amendment claim, falsified facts and destroyed evidence and documents, which resulted in

obstruction of justice. Id. at 625. The Ninth Circuit said that “[s]uch allegations may state a

federally cognizable claim provided that defendants’ actions can be causally connected to a failure

to succeed in the present lawsuit.” Id. “However,” it went on, “if plaintiff were to succeed in this

suit, then his cover-up allegations would be mooted.” Id. (citations omitted). “Because the ultimate

resolution of the present suit remain[ed] in doubt,” the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff’s

“cover-up claim [wa]s not ripe for judicial consideration.” Id. The Ninth Circuit thus concluded

that the plaintiff’s denial of access claim should have been dismissed without prejudice. Id.; see

also Waiton v. City of Santa Rose, No. 13-cv-03218-JST, 2014 WL 3362160, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July

7, 2014) (dismissing without prejudice a plaintiff’s cover-up-based denial of access claim because

he could not, at that time, allege “that any defendant’s actions prevented him from pursuing or

perfecting a case in the courts”); Carr v. Her, No. 2:09-cv-0826 GEB KJN P, 2012 WL 259457, at

*12 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (“A cover-up claim is premature when, as here, plaintiff’s action

seeking redress for the underlying constitutional violations remains pending.”). 

Plaintiffs’ cited authorities do not help them. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) involves the

award of nominal damages for a procedural due process claim, not a denial of access claim. Ryland

v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1983), acknowledges that a denial of access claim may be

brought, but it says nothing about when it ripens, and to the extent it can be read to suggest that it

may be brought without first showing that a defendant’s acts rendered other available remedies

ineffective, it is not in line with the binding, subsequent authorities cited above. And in Bell v.

Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), and Lynch v. Barrett, 703 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2013), the

plaintiffs’ underlying actions had already been completed and rendered ineffective, so their denial of

access claims actually were ripe.

Here, as discussed above, John Burns, Tammy Burns, and Mr. Lawrence’s underlying claims

against Defendants for violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have not been dismissed

and are still pending, and they “cannot merely guess that a . . . remedy will be ineffective because of

a defendant’s actions.” Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259, 1262 (6th Cir. 1997). Thus,

under the authority discussed above, John Burns, Tammy Burns, and Mr. Lawrence’s claim for

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 25 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Because the court has determined that the denial of access claim is not ripe, the court does

not address Defendants’ arguments that it also is insufficiently alleged. That is a matter to be

determined only if the claim ripens.

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

26

denial of access is not ripe and must be dismissed without prejudice.8

F. Claim Six

Claim Six is brought by all Plaintiffs against the City of Concord. Plaintiffs bring this claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell. The City of Concord does not move to dismiss the claim

insofar as it is based on the underlying Fourth Amendment claims (Claims One, Two, and Three),

but it does move to dismiss the claim insofar as it is based on the alleged cover-up and investigation

of the shooting of Charles Burns. The court agrees that this is appropriate. 

Local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official

policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. A municipality,

however, may not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the

theory of respondeat superior. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997);

Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir. 1995). To impose

municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1)

that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the

municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s

constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. 

See Plumeau v. School Dist. # 40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

Liability based on a municipal policy may be satisfied in one of three ways: (1) by alleging and

showing that a city or county employee committed the alleged constitutional violation under a

formal governmental policy or longstanding practice or custom that is the customary operating

procedure of the local government entity; (2) by establishing that the individual who committed the

constitutional tort was an official with final policymaking authority, and that the challenged action

itself was an act of official governmental policy which was the result of a deliberate choice made

from among various alternatives; or (3) by proving that an official with final policymaking authority

either delegated policymaking authority to a subordinate or ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 26 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

27

decision or action and the basis for it. See Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1534; Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d

1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“In limited circumstances, a local government’s decision not to train certain employees about

their legal duty to avoid violating citizens’ rights may rise to the level of an official government

policy for purposes of § 1983.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011). 

“A municipality’s culpability for a deprivation of rights is at its most tenuous where a claim turns on

a failure to train.” Id. (citing Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 822–823 (1985) (plurality

opinion) (“[A] ‘policy’ of ‘inadequate training’ ” is “far more nebulous, and a good deal further

removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell ”)). “To satisfy the statute,

a municipality’s failure to train its employees in a relevant respect must amount to ‘deliberate

indifference to the rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come into contact.’” Id.

(quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388). Only then “can such a shortcoming be properly thought

of as a city ‘policy or custom’ that is actionable under § 1983.” City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 389; see

Connick, 131 S.Ct. at 1359-60.

“‘[D]eliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor

disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Board of Comm’rs of Bryan County. v.

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997). “Thus, when city policymakers are on actual or constructive

notice that a particular omission in their training program causes city employees to violate citizens’

constitutional rights, the city may be deemed deliberately indifferent if the policymakers choose to

retain that program.” Connick, 131 S.Ct. at 1360 (citing Bryan Cty., 520 U.S. at 407). “The city’s

‘policy of inaction’ in light of notice that its program will cause constitutional violations ‘is the

functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution.’” Id. (quoting City

of Canton, 489 U.S. at 395 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). “A less

stringent standard of fault for a failure-to-train claim ‘would result in de facto respondeat superior

liability on municipalities . . . .’” Id. (quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 392); see also Pembaur v.

Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986) (opinion of Brennan, J.) (“[M]unicipal liability under § 1983

attaches where—and only where—a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from

among various alternatives by [the relevant] officials . . . .”). Thus, “[a] pattern of similar

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 27 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

28

constitutional violations by untrained employees is ‘ordinarily necessary’ to demonstrate deliberate

indifference for purposes of failure to train.” Connick, 131 S.Ct. at 1360 (quoting Bryan County,

520 U.S. at 409). “Policymakers’ ‘continued adherence to an approach that they know or should

know has failed to prevent tortious conduct by employees may establish the conscious disregard for

the consequences of their action—the deliberate indifference—necessary to trigger municipal

liability.’” Id. (quoting Bryan County, 520 U.S. at 407 (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

“Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect, decisionmakers can

hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training program that will cause violations of

constitutional rights.” Id.

In this claim, Plaintiffs allege that the City of Concord did not adequately train its officers about

“excessive force and false arrest” or “on issues of use of force, use of lethal force, arrest procedures,

execution of warrants, and other related duties,” like “conducting under cover investigations” and

using “lethal force [against] person accused of felonies.” (TAC ¶¶ 129, 132.) Allegations about this

failure relate to a Monell claim based on the underlying Fourth Amendment claims arising out of

Charles Burns’s death and Mr. Lawrence’s arrest. The City of Concord does not move to dismiss

the Monell claim to the extent it is based on this. 

Plaintiffs, however, also allege that the City of Concord uses the LEIFI Protocol “for the purpose

of covering up police misconduct, including law enforcement[-]involved fatalities,” and “to protect

its officers from prosecution for their misconduct.” (Id. ¶¶ 113-14; see id. ¶ 117.) The City of

Concord moves to dismiss the Monell claim to the extent it is based on this. It points out that there

can be no Monell violation when there is no underlying violation, and then it argues that Plaintiffs’

cover-up-related allegations do not, at least at this time, support an underlying violation. The court

agrees, to a point. As the court stated in its previous order, there is no federal right “to seek criminal

justice” or to a certain kind of investigation or prosecution. See Nelson v. Skehan, 386 Fed. Appx.

783, 786 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Nelson has no constitutional right to have the Skehans and Trout

prosecuted.”) (citing Doyle v. Okla. Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566–67 (10th Cir. 1993)); Flores v.

Satz, 137 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 1998) (“That the prosecution did not investigate properly or

prosecute expeditiously the charges against him does not violate clearly established constitutional

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 28 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

29

rights.”). And as the court has determined in this order, Plaintiffs’ denial of access claim is not ripe. 

Thus, Plaintiffs’ allegations that the City of Concord used the LEIFI protocol to cover up their

unlawful killing of Charles Burns cannot at this time support a stand-alone Monell claim. Plaintiffs’

Monell claim against the City of Concord is dismissed without prejudice to the extent that it is based

on the alleged cover-up and investigation of the shooting of Charles Burns. The allegations

nonetheless are relevant to the excessive force and false arrest claims.

G. Claims Seven and Eight

Claim Seven is brought by all Plaintiffs against Contra Costa County, and Claim Eight is brought

by all Plaintiffs against the City of Antioch. Plaintiffs bring these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and Monell. Contra Costa County and the City of Antioch move to dismiss the claims against them. 

Like part of Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the City of Concord, Plaintiffs’ Monell claims

against Contra Costa County and the City of Antioch are based on the alleged cover-up and

investigation of the shooting of Charles Burns. As already described, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]t was

the policy and/or custom” of the Antioch Police Department to inadequately supervise and train its

officers, and of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office to inadequately supervise and

train its investigators, “regarding proper and lawful police misconduct investigations, and to instruct

them to assist local law enforcement in concealing misconduct, thereby failing to adequately

discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its investigators.” (TAC ¶¶ 143, 159.) 

Specifically, the Antioch Police Department and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office

“did not require appropriate in-service training or re-training of officers on the subject matter of

lawful and proper police misconduct investigations” or “on issues of use of force, use of lethal force,

arrest procedures, execution of warrants, and other related duties for which they would ordinarily be

called upon to conduct investigations.” (Id. ¶¶ 143, 147, 159, 161.) Plaintiffs allege that the

Antioch Police Department and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office “had prior

knowledge of the propensity of the Concord Police Department and Concord Police Officers to

engage in unlawful acts in violation of persons[’] constitutional rights, particularly with regard to

excessive force,” “and notwithstanding that knowledge agreed to participate in the investigation per

the [LEIFI] Protocol for the purpose of covering up the constitutional violations of the officers.” 

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 29 of 30
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 14-00535 LB

ORDER

30

(Id. ¶¶ 148, 162.) 

For the reasons set forth in the previous section, Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against Contra Costa

County and the City of Antioch are dismissed without prejudice to the extent that they are based on

the alleged cover-up and investigation of the shooting of Charles Burns. The allegations nonetheless

are relevant to the excessive force and false arrest claims.

Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Monell claims are based on Contra Costa County’s or

the City of Antioch’s “prior knowledge of the propensity of the Concord Police Department and

Concord Police Officers to engage in unlawful acts in violation of persons[’] constitutional rights,

particularly with regard to excessive force,” and Contra Costa County’s or the City of Antioch’s

deliberate indifference to that propensity, see TAC ¶¶ 148, 162, the claims fail. As the court

explained in its previous order, Contra Costa County and the City of Antioch are not responsible for

training Concord police officers, and Plaintiffs have had numerous opportunities to re-allege these

claims. Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against Contra Costa County and the City of Antioch are dismissed

with prejudice to the extent that they are based on Contra Costa County’s and the City of Antioch’s

alleged failure to prevent the Concord police officers from violating the Fourth Amendment.

H. Claim Nine

Claim Nine is brought by the Estate of Charles Burns against the “Concord Officer Defendants”

(defined as described when discussing Claim One) for battery. The Concord Defendants do not

move to dismiss this claim. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motions and

dismisses the Third Amended Complaint to extent described above. Defendants shall answer the

Third Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(4)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00535-LB Document 82 Filed 04/09/15 Page 30 of 30