Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00760/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00760-4/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN SANCHEZ ARIAS a minor by and

through his Guardian Ad Litem YOLANDA

ARIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 09-00760 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT CARLOS

BASURTO’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

In this civil rights case, Plaintiff Ivan Sanchez Arias

alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and subjected to excessive

use of force by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer. Carlos

Basurto, a Sergeant for the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department has

filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion

with respect to his claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but does

not oppose Defendant’s motion with respect to his state law claims. 

After considering all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

grants Sergeant Basurto’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Sonoma County has a special task force called the Sonoma

County Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Team (MAGNET) to combat gang

violence and gang associated problems in the county. The MAGNET

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 6
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

team consists of members from the CHP, Sonoma County Sheriff’s

Department, Santa Rosa Police Department, Rohnert Park Department

of Public Safety, Sonoma Police Department, Healdsburg Police

Department, Cotati Police Department, Windsor Police Department,

Sebastopol Police Department, Santa Rosa Junior College Campus

Police, Cloverdale Police Department and Petaluma Police

Department. Defendant Basurto was the supervising sergeant of

MAGNET. He organized and oversaw the daily operations of the unit

and its members. 

On March 16, 2007, Agent Dale Dutton from the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI) presented MAGNET with a list of persons on

probation for whom he sought assistance conducting searches. One

person on the list was Jaime Arias, Plaintiff’s cousin. The MAGNET

unit believed Jaime Arias lived with Yolanda Arias, Plaintiff’s

mother, at 435 Link Lane in Santa Rosa. Members of the MAGNET team

drove to this house to conduct a probation search of Jaime Arias. 

When Sergeant Basurto arrived at the home, he saw an

unidentified male running towards the house and heard California

Highway Patrol Officer Bill Harm yell, “Stop, stop.” Sergeant

Basurto could not identify who Harm was yelling at, but he assumed

it was Jaime Arias. In fact, the individual running into the house

was Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that he heard an officer yell for

him to “[g]et into the house,” opposition at 2, but he does not

support this assertion with any admissible evidence. Officer Harm

and Agent Dutton pursued Plaintiff into the house and Sergeant

Basurto followed. Officer Harm and Agent Dutton found Plaintiff

inside the home and they asked him to identify himself. Plaintiff

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 6
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 3

responded, “Fuck off,” and yelled at the officers, “You are all a

fucking joke. You have no right to be here and I don’t give a shit

what you say.” Officer Harm told Plaintiff that they wanted to

conduct a probation search of Jaime and they asked him where Jaime

was located. Plaintiff responded, “I don’t care and I don’t know

where he is.” Officer Harm then asked Plaintiff why he ran into

the residence and he stated, “Fuck you. I don’t have to listen to

you or any of you assholes.” Plaintiff does not dispute any facts

with respect to this verbal altercation. Officer Harm then placed

him in handcuffs and took him to Officer Harm’s patrol car. At the

same time that Officer Harm handcuffed Plaintiff, Sergeant Basurto

spoke with Yolanda Arias and she complained that the person Officer

Harm just handcuffed was Plaintiff, not Jaime. Yolanda then showed

Sergeant Basurto all of the rooms in the house to prove that Jaime

was not there. 

When Sergeant Basurto exited the house, Officer Harm had

already placed Plaintiff under arrest and had him seated in the

back of Officer Harm’s patrol car. Officer Harm told Sergeant

Basurto that he had arrested Plaintiff for violating California

Penal Code section 148(a)(1), resisting, delaying or obstructing a

peace officer in the discharge of his duties. Plaintiff claims

that, while handcuffed and seated in the backseat of the police

car, Officer Harm struck him in the face. Officer Harm denies this

allegation.

Plaintiff filed a suit against the CHP, CHP Commissioner J.A.

Farrow, CHP Officer Harm, Sonoma County, Sonoma County Sheriff Bill

Cogbill and Sonoma County Sergeant Basurto. The parties stipulated

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 6
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

to dismiss the claims against the CHP, CHP Commissioner J.A.

Farrow, Sonoma County and Sheriff Cogbill without prejudice. At

issue in the present motion is whether Plaintiff has evidence that

Sergeant Basurto violated his civil rights. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 6
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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts his claims against Sergeant Basurto under a

respondeat superior theory of liability. However, there “is no

respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Taylor, 880

F.2d at 1045; see also Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th

Cir. 2002). “Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a

showing of personal participation by the defendant. A supervisor

is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if

the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew

of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 297

F.3d at 1045. Plaintiff offers no evidence that Sergeant Basurto

personally participated in Officer Harm’s conduct or that he knew

of the conduct and failed to prevent it. Sergeant Basurto did not

have any physical interaction with Plaintiff. Further, Sergeant

Basurto did not arrest Plaintiff nor was he a part of the group of

officers that made a decision to arrest Plaintiff. Sergeant

Basurto’s only role in Plaintiff’s arrest was his subsequent review

and approval of Officer Harm’s Incident Report. Plaintiff cites no

law to suggest that this activity alone constitutes a

Constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff also argues that, because he entered his house at

the request of an officer, Sergeant Basurto’s entrance into the

house and Plaintiff’s subsequent arrest was unconstitutional. As

noted above, Plaintiff has not submitted or pointed to any evidence

in the record to support his allegation that an officer told him to

go into the house. Further, even if Plaintiff supported this

assertion with admissible evidence, there is no evidence that

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 5 of 6
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

1Plaintiff does not claim that the officers did not have

probable cause to believe that Jaime Arias lived at 435 Link Lane

in Santa Rosa.

6

Sergeant Basurto heard the statement. Moreover, even if an officer

told Plaintiff to enter the house, the officers reasonably believed

him to be Jaime Arias and they were lawfully pursing him to conduct

a probation search. See Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th

Cir. 2005) (officers may search the home of a parolee or

probationer without a warrant and without “run[ning] afoul of the

Fourth Amendment” so long as “the officers have [probable cause to

believe] that they are at the address where . . . the parolee . . .

resides”);1 Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“officers may constitutionally detain the occupants of a home

during a parole or probation compliance search”). 

Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of

Sergeant Basurto on all of Plaintiff’s claims. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant Sergeant

Basurto’s motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 24. The case is

set for a case management conference on May 13, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/10/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00760-CW Document 42 Filed 05/10/10 Page 6 of 6