Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01350-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Yuba City
Defendant
Robert D. Landon
Defendant
Lonnie Craig Patterson
Plaintiff

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

LONNIE CRAIG PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF YUBA CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-CV-01350-MCE-CKD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Lonnie Craig Patterson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants 

City of Yuba City, Police Chief Robert D. Landon, and Does 1-10, alleging a number of 

federal and state causes of action. On the joint request of the parties, Defendant 

Landon was subsequently dismissed as were a number of Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 

19. All that remains before the Court are Plaintiff’s causes of action for unlawful seizure 

under the Fourth Amendment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false 

arrest/false imprisonment. Presently before the Court is a Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 28) filed by the only remaining named Defendant, the City of Yuba 

City (“Defendant”). For the following reasons, that Motion is GRANTED.

1

 

 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

BACKGROUND2

Each of Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims arises out of his contention that he

was wrongfully detained without probable cause after an altercation with police officers 

employed by Defendant. As a result of that altercation, Plaintiff was arrested for assault 

with a deadly weapon on a peace officer in violation of California Penal Code section

245(d)(1), and he was thereafter criminally charged by the Sutter County District 

Attorney’s Office with both that violation and a violation of Penal Code section 245(a)(2), 

which prohibits assault on the person of another with a firearm. After a preliminary 

hearing, although the court did not hold Plaintiff to answer for the charge of Penal Code 

section 245(d)(1), it found probable cause to support the 245(a)(2) charge. 

Plaintiff twice proceeded to trial in his criminal case. During the course of both 

trials, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the charge against him on the basis that there was 

insufficient evidence from which a jury could find him guilty. In both cases, the court 

disagreed and denied Plaintiff’s motions. The first jury was unable to reach a verdict, but 

Plaintiff was acquitted by the second jury. 

STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In a summary judgment motion, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion 

and identifying the portions in the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a 

genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its 

initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a 

 2 All facts recited herein are undisputed. 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 

391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968).

In attempting to establish the existence or non-existence of a genuine factual 

dispute, the party must support its assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in 

the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, 

affidavits[,] or declarations . . . or other materials; or showing that the materials cited do 

not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party 

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The 

opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that 

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 251-52 (1986); Owens v. Local No. 169, Assoc. of W. Pulp and 

Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir. 1987). The opposing party must also 

demonstrate that the dispute about a material fact “is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 

477 U.S. at 248. 

In resolving a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to 

be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed 

before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Id. at 255. Nevertheless, 

inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to 

produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen 

Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 

1987).

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves for summary judgment on all remaining claims, arguing that 

they fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

state court’s findings that his arrest and detention was supported by probable cause. In 

opposition, Plaintiff concedes that the state’s probable cause findings are fatal to his 

Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure and his negligent infliction of emotional 

distress causes of action. He continues to argue, however, that Defendant remains 

liable for false arrest/imprisonment. This argument is not well taken.

Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when: “(1) the issue is identical to 

that decided in a former proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and necessarily 

decided; (4) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the party against whom 

collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to a prior proceeding.” 

McCutchen v. City of Montclair, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1144-45 (1999) (internal citation 

and quotation omitted). All of these requirements were met in this case by the state 

court’s decision after Plaintiff’s preliminary hearing that there was sufficient probable 

cause to sustain the Penal Code section the 245(a)(2) charge. See id. Plaintiff thus 

properly concedes that neither his Fourth Amendment claim nor his negligent infliction of 

emotional distress claim is viable. 

As to the false imprisonment/arrest claim, Plaintiff nonetheless contends that 

“[t]his claim does not have lack of probable cause as an element” and that “if probable 

cause is not an issue the collateral estoppel as to the probable cause issue would be 

inapplicable as well.” Pl.’s Opp. at 2. Regardless of whether probable cause is an 

element of Plaintiff’s final cause of action, however, it is clear that an officer is not liable 

for false imprisonment/arrest if the challenged detention is supported by probable cause. 

See Cal. Pen. Code § 836(a) (“A peace officer . . . without a warrant, may arrest a 

person” if, among other things, “[t]he officer has probable cause to believe that the 

person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.”);

Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 487 (9th Cir. 2007) (existence of probable 

cause to arrest fatal to false arrest/imprisonment claim); Salazar v. Upland Police Dept., 

116 Cal. App. 4th 934, 941-42 (2004) (finding that “undisputed existence of probable 

cause defeats . . . cause[] of action for false arrest/imprisonment”). Accordingly, 

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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 Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from denying the existence of probable cause, 

he cannot succeed on this remaining state law claim, and Defendants are entitled to 

judgment. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED, and the 

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-01350-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 5