Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01138/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01138-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOLFO MENDOZA; AZUCENA MENDOZA;

A.M., Jr., a Minor; R.M., a minor;

and E.M., a Minor, by and through

their guardian ad litem, Adolfo

Mendoza; and JOHNNY MENDOZA;

Plaintiffs,

v.

SCOTT WHITEHOUSE, FRED DORAN, MIKE

WOOD, STEVE MIRIANI, JORGE

GIL-BLANCO, ALDO SERRANO, JOE RIPOSA,

JONATHAN STEVENS, JIM MAYORAL, STEVE

CRANE, AND DOES 4 through 50,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-01138 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT CRANE'S

MOTION FOR MORE

DEFINITE

STATEMENT

Defendant Steve Crane moves for a more definite statement

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Plaintiffs oppose the

motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties,

the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an operation involving several police

departments which resulted in the alleged forced entry by police

officers into Plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs' home had been

misidentified in the search warrant as the home of a suspect

involved in a narcotics investigation.

Case 4:07-cv-01138-CW Document 75 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 4
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

In their third amended complaint (TAC), Plaintiffs allege the

following. Defendant Crane, of the Fairfield Police Department,

was involved in the execution of the search warrant. In ¶ 30 of

the TAC, Plaintiffs allege:

A pre-warrant briefing was held, which was attended by

all of the law enforcement officers who were to

participate in the search, including but not limited to

all of the Defendants. At the briefing, Defendants and

the other officers were informed that the residence they

had been authorized to search was a yellow stucco house

with white trim, a raised red brick porch, a U-Haul truck

parked directly in front, and a vehicle parked in the

driveway with a cloth cover. Defendants and the other

officers were told that the occupants of the residence

were a black male and a juvenile black female.

In ¶ 32 of the TAC, Plaintiffs allege that their residence, 41

Dimaggio, is next door to 53 Dimaggio and that, at 1:48 a.m., when

the warrant was executed, the porch light was lit at 53 Dimaggio so

that the color of the residence and all the details mentioned above

were clearly visible. Also, Plaintiffs’ residence, which was

painted peach with grey trim and had no U-Haul truck parked in

front or cloth-covered car in the driveway, could be seen from the

light of a nearby street light, and it could be seen that it did

not match the description in the warrant of a yellow stucco house

with white trim. Plaintiffs allege, “Thus, all of the Defendants

knew or should have known that Plaintiffs’ residence was not the

residence described in the warrant and, consequently, that they did

not have lawful authority to enter or search it.”

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that a defendant may move for a more definite statement if the

plaintiff's pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that the party

Case 4:07-cv-01138-CW Document 75 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 4
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

cannot reasonably prepare a response." "[T]he proper test in

evaluating a motion under Rule 12(e) is whether the complaint

provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his

responsive pleadings." Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v.

Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988). 

"Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with

disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading

requirements of the Federal Rules." Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc.,

874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994). "Rule 12(e) is designed

to correct only unintelligibility in a pleading not merely a

claimed lack of detail." FRA S. p. A. v. Surg-O-Flex of America,

Inc., 415 F. Supp. 421, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). The proper tool for

eliciting additional detail is discovery, not a Rule 12(e) motion. 

Musacchio, 695 F. Supp at 1060.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Crane argues that because his name is mentioned only

once in the TAC where he is identified as an employee of the

Fairfield Police Department, the TAC is impermissibly vague and

ambiguous in regard to its cause of action against him such that he

is unable to respond intelligently or to assert affirmative

defenses or immunities.

In their TAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Crane was one

of the several defendants involved in the operation underlying the

complaint. Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants attended a prewarrant briefing at which the house of the suspect was described in

detail. Plaintiffs allege that the warrant mistakenly gave

Plaintiffs' address as the address of the suspect's house. 

Case 4:07-cv-01138-CW Document 75 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiffs allege that, on the night the warrant was executed, the

two houses were clearly visible due to a porch light and a street

light and that Plaintiffs' house was different than the description

of the suspect's house. Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants knew

or should have known that they were illegally and forcibly entering

the wrong house. Plaintiffs also allege that all Defendants

entered Plaintiffs' house. 

These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action

against Defendant Crane for the violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth

Amendment right against unreasonable searches. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Crane's motion for a more

definite statement (Docket # 65) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/28/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01138-CW Document 75 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 4