Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Augusto
Defendant
City of Fairfield
Defendant
Tanya Creal
Plaintiff
Chuck Timm
Defendant

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

TANYA CREAL,

NO. CIV. S-06-560 WBS PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT AND PARTIAL MOTION 

TO DISMISS

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, PAUL

AUGUSTO, CHUCK TIMM, DOES 1-

10,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendants City of Fairfield and Paul Augusto move for

a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) and to dismiss in part

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons given below, the

court grants these motions in part. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On April 20, 2004, plaintiff was driving a 1987

Cadillac De Ville when she was stopped by defendant Chuck Timm, a

member of the Fairfield Police Department. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 13,

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 7
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

14.) When plaintiff was asked to present her license and

identification, she handed defendant Timm her temporary driver’s

license from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. (Id. ¶

15.) After contesting the validity of plaintiff’s proffered

license, defendant Timm was allegedly assisted by defendant

Augusto in restraining and physically assaulting plaintiff with

excessive force. (Id. ¶¶ 16-20.) Defendants allegedly continued

to restrain plaintiff even after she informed them that being

restrained caused her great pain because of pre-existing spinal

injuries. (Id. ¶ 19.) Subsequently, upon placing plaintiff in

the back of the police vehicle, defendant Augusto allegedly made

threatening and racially discriminatory comments to her. (Id. ¶

21.) 

While plaintiff and defendants were presumably en route

to the police station, defendant Augusto allegedly stopped the

patrol car, removed plaintiff from the vehicle, and physically

assaulted plaintiff once more, including striking her in the face

and in the head. (Id. ¶¶ 23-25.) Defendant Augusto then

transported plaintiff to an emergency room, upon the

recommendation of another officer who had arrived at the scene. 

(Id. ¶ 26.) On March 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint on

the basis of these allegations against defendants Timm and

Augusto and against the City of Fairfield. (Id.) 

Defendants filed this motion for a more definite

statement and partial motion to dismiss on April 27, 2006,

contending that plaintiff has not given them sufficient notice of

the claims she asserts and additionally has alleged claims

without a sufficient factual basis. Plaintiff concedes that the

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 7
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

complaint should be amended and seeks the court’s permission to

file a First Amended Complaint by July 12, 2006. Defendants

agree only to postpone this motion until after the time that

plaintiff has provided them with her First Amended Complaint, and

alternatively ask the court to grant the motion with leave to

amend. 

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss

At the pleading stage, the plaintiff need only set

forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2);

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence &

Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). A complaint need

only “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Consequently, on a motion to dismiss,

the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and

draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader. Scheuer

v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319

(1972). The court does not, “however, necessarily assume the

truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the

form of factual allegations.” W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643

F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). “[A] simple declaration that

defendant’s conduct violated the ultimate legal standard at issue

. . . does not suffice.” Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 692 (2d

Cir. 2001). Still, the court may not dismiss for failure to

state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff additionally alleges that federal question 1

jurisdiction is conferred upon this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that supplemental jurisdiction over her

state law claims is conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

4

him to relief.” Van Buskirk v. CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th

Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).

Defendants contend that plaintiff has not stated claims

upon which relief can be granted of First, Fifth, or Fourteenth

Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s

complaint initially alleges that the action arises under the

First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and under § 1983. (Compl. ¶ 1.) It also 1

includes a detailed account of plaintiff’s factual allegations. 

However, no further mention of the constitutional violations is

made in the complaint’s “Causes of Action” section. Instead, the

causes of action alleged in the complaint are limited to the

following: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and

respondeat superior. (Id.) 

Taking the facts in plaintiff’s complaint as true, the

violations of plaintiff’s rights alleged appear to be based on

her arrest, the use of excessive force during her arrest, and

discriminatory conduct by defendants. Although plaintiff alleges

a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights, the Fifth Amendment

contains an equal protection component that only “prohibit[s] the

United States from invidiously discriminating between individuals

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 4 of 7
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

This is in contrast to the Fourteenth Amendment, which 2

protects against discriminatory treatment by state actors. 

Washington, 426 U.S. at 238.

Plaintiff concedes that the motion to dismiss this 3

claim has merit and has agreed not to pursue Fifth Amendment

claims based on due process. She further states that if she realleges facts regarding racial animus in the first amended

complaint, presumably with regard to her Fourteenth Amendment

claim, she will do so with the necessary clarity and specificity

to put defendants on notice. 

5

or groups.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 238 (1976).2

Defendant Augusto, as a municipal police officer, was not an

employee of the federal government. Therefore, because the

complaint does not include allegations against any officers of

the federal government that would constitute violations of the

Fifth Amendment, there does not appear to be a factual basis for

plaintiff to state a Fifth Amendment claim.3

Additionally, plaintiff has not identified a specific

constitutional right under the First Amendment that has been

violated, and the facts of plaintiff’s complaint do not set out a

clear basis for a First Amendment violation. Nowhere does

plaintiff suggest that, in the process of her arrest and the

subsequent use of force by defendants, her freedom of speech,

religion, or assembly was in any way impaired by defendants’

conduct. See U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”); Sloman v.

Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that

liability under § 1983 may arise when a police officer uses his

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 5 of 7
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

official powers to “warn, cite and arrest” in some manner that

“deterred or chilled” political expression). Therefore,

defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted as to

the allegations implicating the First and Fifth Amendments. 

B. Motion for More Definite Statement

Defendant also moves for a more definite statement

under Rule 12(e). “If a pleading to which a responsive pleading

is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party

may move for a more definite statement before interposing a

responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “Motions for more

definite statement are proper only where a complaint is so

indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the

claim being asserted.” Advanced Microtherm, Inc. v. Norman

Wright Mech. Equip. Corp., No. 04-02266, 2004 WL 2075445, at *12

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2004).

In support of their motion for more definite statement,

defendants contend that they cannot determine the nature of

plaintiff’s claims. In particular, it is unclear whether

plaintiff’s allegations are brought under federal or state law,

nor can they determine what place plaintiff’s citation of

constitutional law has in her allegations. The ambiguous nature

of plaintiff’s claims does require clarification. Therefore,

plaintiff should clearly allege whether her claims are brought

under federal or state law, or both, in her First Amended

Complaint.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 6 of 7
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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First and

Fifth Amendment claims be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;

(2) defendants’ motion to dismiss as to all other

claims be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and 

(3) defendants’ motion for a more definite statement

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part for clarification as

to whether plaintiff’s claims arise under federal or state law. 

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file a First Amended

Complaint that is consistent with this court’s order no later

than July 12, 2006. 

DATED: June 12, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00560-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 7 of 7