Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05724/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05724-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Vallejo
Defendant
Santiago Hutchins
Plaintiff
David McLaughlin
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANTIAGO HUTCHINS,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, ET. AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 19-cv-05724-YGR 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CITY OF 

VALLEJO’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 14 

Plaintiff Santiago Hutchins brings this action against defendants City of Vallejo 

(“Vallejo”), David McLaughlin, City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Department John 

Doe, Walnut Creek Police Department Office Jane Doe, and Does 3-50. Based upon an alleged 

interaction between Hutchins and the individual defendants, Hutchins alleges six causes of action: 

(1) violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including unreasonable search and 

seizure, and excessive and unreasonable force and force and restraint in the course of arrest or 

detention, against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50; (2) deprivation of 

those same constitutional rights in violation of Section 1983, pursuant to Monell, against Vallejo 

and Does 3-13; (3) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act, against officers 

McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50; (4) violation of Hutchins’ rights under Article I, 

Section 13 of the California Constitution against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and 

Does 3-50; (5) assault and battery against officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-

50;and (6) negligence officers McLaughlin, John Doe, Jane Doe, and Does 3-50. 

Now pending before the Court is Vallejo’s motion to dismiss Hutchins’ complaint pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 14.) Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers 

submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. 

The Court is guided by established precedent in the Rule 12(b)(6) context: a complaint 

must plead “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads 

Case 4:19-cv-05724-YGR Document 24 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Having reviewed the complaint, as well as the arguments advanced in the briefing the 

Court concludes that Hutchins has sufficiently and adequately pled a Section 1983 claim pursuant 

to Monell. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 

Indeed, Vallejo’s arguments advanced in the motion inappropriately narrow the allegations of the 

complaint. The Court rejects this narrow characterization and view of the allegations. At this 

juncture, the Court finds that Hutchins has pled enough factual content for the Court to draw the 

reasonable inference that Vallejo is liable under Monell and its progeny. 

Accordingly, Vallejo’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Vallejo and defendants shall answer 

the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this order. Further, a Case Management 

Conference shall be set for Monday, March 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United 

States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 14. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-05724-YGR Document 24 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2