Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01424/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01424-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHESTER MARK SOMERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN;SAN 

JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF‟S 

DEPARTMENT; CALIFORNIA 

HIGHWAY PATROL; SAN JOAQUIN 

COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL; 

DEPUTY MICHAEL ARREOLA; 

DEPUTY STIEHR; DEPUTY CHRIS 

TUNQUIST; SHERIFF‟S SERGEANT 

STONE; SHERIFF‟S SERGEANT 

PURKIS; THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA; CHP OFFICER BRENT 

MANGHAM; CHP OFFICER MARK 

BUTLER; JANET LEE BARTON, and 

DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01424-GEB-AC

ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY AND 

STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

Pending are dismissal motions, filed under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), by the following parties:

Defendants County of San Joaquin (“San Joaquin County”), San 

Joaquin County Sheriff‟s Department (“Sheriff‟s Department”), San 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 6
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

Joaquin County General Hospital (“San Joaquin Hospital”), Deputy 

Michael Arreola, Deputy Christopher Stiehr, Deputy Christopher 

Tunquist, Sergeant Nilida Stone, Sergeant Claude Purkis, San 

Joaquin County General Hospital nurse Janet Lee Barton, R.N., 

(collectively “the County Defendants”); and the State of 

California, California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), Brent Mangham and 

Mark Butler (collectively “the State Defendants”). 

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint (“Compl.”) that he 

was subjected to the use of “excessive, cruel and unusual” force 

“in violation of the Fourth and Eight[h] Amendments to the United 

States Constitution”, and related state claims. 

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The following allegations in the Complaint concern the 

motions. Plaintiff alleges he was “arrested and detained by 

defendant law enforcement agencies,” during which he was 

“shackled on both his hands and feet.” (Notice of Removal, Ex. A 

(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 10-11, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also alleges he “fell 

to the ground,” and “was assaulted by defendant officers with the 

use of a taser.” (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges the officers 

then took him to a hospital where the nurses “obtained a blood 

sample without Plaintiff‟s consent” and the officers directed the 

nursing staff to “forcibly obtain[] [his urine] by . . .

inserting a catheter” into Plaintiff‟s penis while “his legs and 

arms [were] strapped down to a hospital bed.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16-17.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, the 

Court determines whether a complaint contains “factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 6
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

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The mere possibility of 

misconduct is not enough. Id. at 678-79. The “inquiry is limited 

to the [factual] allegations in the [c]omplaint, which are 

accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff.” Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th 

Cir. 2008). It is inappropriate to assume a plaintiff “can prove 

facts that [he] has not alleged or that the defendants have 

violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” 

Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council 

of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. State Claims

All Defendants argue Plaintiff‟s state claims must be 

dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege in his Complaint 

that he complied with California‟s Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), and 

this is required before these claims may be included in a 

lawsuit. Plaintiff concedes in his opposition that he has not 

alleged compliance with the CTCA and agrees to the requested 

dismissal. (Pl. Opp‟n Cnty. Defs. Mot. Dismiss (“County Opp‟n”) 

6:2, ECF No. 13; Pl Opp‟n State Defs. Mot Dismiss (“State Opp‟n”) 

3:2, ECF No. 14).

Therefore, Plaintiff‟s state claims are dismissed with 

leave to amend. 

B. Excessive Force Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1. San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County agues Plaintiff‟s excessive force 

claim against it should be dismissed because Plaintiff “failed to 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 6
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

make any factual allegation that the County failed to . . . train 

the [officers] . . . in a way that reflects a deliberate or 

conscious choice.” (County Defendants‟ Mot. (“County Mot.”) 7:27-

28, ECF No. 5-1.)

Plaintiff counters that the Complaint “clearly gives 

Defendants proper notice” because the facts alleged “arguably 

demonstrate the officers‟ lack of training and experience in 

gathering evidence and authorizing the forcible collection of 

urine from suspects.” (County Opp‟n 3:12-14, 4:21-26.)

“[T]he inadequacy of [law enforcement officers‟] 

training may serve as the basis for [a county‟s] liability only 

where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to 

the rights of persons with whom the [officers] come into 

contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989) 

“Under this standard, [Plaintiff] must allege facts to show that 

the County . . . disregarded the known or obvious consequence

that a particular omission in [its] training program would cause 

[municipal] employees to violate citizens' constitutional 

rights.” Flores v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th 

Cir. 2014). Plaintiff‟s Complaint does not contain an allegation 

satisfying this standard. Therefore, the County‟s motion is 

granted. 

2. CHP and State of California

The CHP and the State of California each seek dismissal

with prejudice of Plaintiff‟s federal claim alleged under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the CHP “is an agency of the State of 

California” and the State of California and its agencies are “not 

considered a „person‟ for [liability] purposes of section 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 4 of 6
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

1983....” (Defs.‟ State of Cal. Mot. (“State Mot.”) 5:3-8, ECF 

No. 6.) Plaintiff “concedes this argument as to the State of 

California and the California Highway Patrol. . . .” (State Opp‟n 

3:7-8.)

Therefore, the motion is granted without leave to 

amend. 

3. Sheriff’s Department and San Joaquin Hospital

The Sheriff‟s Department and San Joaquin Hospital seek

dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff‟s § 1983 claims alleged 

against them arguing the claims “are improper because each is a 

department of the County. . ., not a person or separate entity”

suable under § 1983. (County Defs.‟ Mot. 13:9-11.) Plaintiff 

concedes the Sheriff‟s Department and San Joaquin Hospital are 

not proper defendants and does not oppose the requested 

dismissal. (County Opp‟n 6:5-9.) 

Therefore, the § 1983 claims against the Sheriff‟s 

Department and San Joaquin Hospital are dismissed without leave 

to amend. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s state claims are 

DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff‟s excessive force claim

against San Joaquin County is DISMISSED with leave to amend, and 

Plaintiff‟s federal claims against the Sheriff‟s Department, San 

Joaquin Hospital, CHP and the State of California are DISMISSED 

without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days from the date on 

which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing 

the deficiencies in any claim that was dismissed with leave to 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

amend. 

Dated: November 18, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 11/19/14 Page 6 of 6