Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-01211-NC
03-02-2020
HARLAN DEAN GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION; SCREENING COMPLAINT; REASSIGNING CASE; RECOMMENDING GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2
Before the Court are pro se plaintiff Harlan Graves's application to proceed in forma pauperis and complaint to screen under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mr. Graves's complaint arises out of an altercation with a security guard outside a Trader Joe's grocery store in a shopping center and a subsequent transfer, against his will, back to his home in a police vehicle by the Palo Alto Police Department. The Court GRANTS the IFP application. The Court GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint, finding that the facts alleged are insufficient to state Mr. Graves's claims for negligence and for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court FINDS that Mr. Graves has sufficiently pleaded his claims for false imprisonment and for civil battery.
I. IFP Application
An application to proceed in forma pauperis must include a showing that the plaintiff is unable to pay the fees required to file an action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The required affidavit must include a statement of the plaintiff's assets to provide the Court with sufficient information to determine whether she is able to pay the fees. Id. The Court has reviewed Mr. Graves's IFP application and is satisfied that the income and assets listed are insufficient to pay the $400 filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The IFP application is GRANTED.
II. Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint
Mr. Graves alleges that in February 2018 at around noon, he was sitting on a bench outside a Trader Joe's in the Town and Country Village shopping center in Palo Alto, California, when he was approached by a security guard employed by Forbes Security, Inc. Compl. at 5. The security guard repeatedly accused Graves of being drunk, and pushed Graves backward several times when Graves stood up from the bench. Id. Officers from the City of Palo Alto's police department arrived and detained Graves. Id. at 5-6. Palo Alto police officers conducted a field sobriety test, which Graves passed, and asked him questions about the location of his residence and seized his identification card to do a warrant check. Id. at 6, 7. The police officers forced Graves to enter their vehicle and they drove him to his home two blocks away. Id. at 6. Graves ran up the stairs into his home and locked the front door, advising his housemates not to answer it. Id. An officer entered a fenced-off area of the house to knock on the front door. Id. No one answered and the officer eventually left. Id.
B. Legal Standard
A complaint submitted by a person proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001).
Under Rule 8(a), a pleading must include (1) a short and plain statement of the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Although a complaint need not allege detailed factual allegations, it must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when it "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).
Mr. Graves brings claims for (1) false imprisonment, (2) assault and battery, (3) negligence, and (4) violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants the Palo Alto Police Department, Forbes Security, Inc., Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., and an unnamed security guard. Dkt. No. 1.
C. False Imprisonment
To state a claim for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must allege (1) nonconsensual, intentional confinement, (2) without lawful privilege, (3) for an appreciable period of time, however brief. Bocanegra v. Jakubowski, 241 Cal App. 4th 848, 855 (2015).
Here, Graves brings his claim for false imprisonment against Forbes Security and their unnamed security guard employee based on the guard shoving Graves repeatedly, preventing his free movement. Compl. at 8. He brings the claim against the Palo Alto Police Department based on his being forced into the police vehicle and driven home against his will. Id.
"Confinement" for the purposes of a false imprisonment claim requires restraint effectuate by physical force, threat of force or arrest, physical barriers, or any other form of unreasonable duress. Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc., 45 Cal. App. 4th 990, 1001 (1996) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds that Graves has not sufficiently alleged that the unnamed Forbes security guard confined him when the guard pushed and shoved him because Graves was not physically restrained. Graves may seek damages for the pushing and shoving via his other claims, but the pushing does not constitute "confinement" as it is alleged in the Complaint.
As to the Palo Alto Police Department, Graves has alleged that he was forced into a police vehicle and driven to his house against his well and without any citation issued or arrest effectuated. The Court FINDS that these allegations are sufficient to plead a claim of false imprisonment.
The Palo Alto Police Department defendants may assert immunity and other defenses once they have appeared in the case. For purposes of this screening order, all alleged facts are assumed to be true and the Court does not assert potential defensive arguments or counterclaims on behalf of the defendants.
D. Assault and Battery
To state a claim for civil battery under California law, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant intentionally did an act which resulted in harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person, (2) that the plaintiff did not consent to the contact, and (3) that the harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss, or harm to the plaintiff. Knapps v. City of Oakland, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1166 (2009).
Here, Graves brings his claim for civil battery against Forbes Security, Inc. and the unnamed security guard. Graves alleges that the unnamed security guard shoved and pushed him repeatedly near the bench outside the Trader Joe's. The shoving caused Graves to walk backwards for over 150 feet from the bench. Compl. at 12. He states that "[t]he force used was violent and severe and left [him] in pain lasting for several weeks with continued sharp stabbing pains occurring occasional[ly] in [his] middle back." Compl. at 11. This is enough to plead a claim for assault and battery against the unnamed security guard. Though he does not clearly articulate this theory of liability in the complaint, the Court FINDS that these facts also sufficiently plead a claim for assault and battery against Forbes Security, Inc., through vicarious liability because he alleges that the security guard was employed by Forbes. Compl. at 5. Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1077, 1107 (2019) (stating that "under the respondeat superior doctrine, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.") (internal citations and quotations omitted).
E. Negligence - Premises Liability
To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996).
Graves brings his negligence claim against Forbes Security and against Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc. Compl. at 12. He has a few factual bases for these claims. First, he alleges that Palo Alto Town and Country Village was negligent for hiring "a security company that actively targets homeless people who are not loitering to get them off the property while violating these person(s) rights." Compl. at 12. He further alleges that Forbes Security is "trained to remove homeless looking individuals" from the property. Compl. at 13. While Graves was not homeless at the time of the incident, he believes he "was being target as if [he] was a homeless person which is not only an insult to [him], but it is an insult to people who cannot afford housing." Id.
Graves frames this claim against Palo Alto Town and Country Village under a "premises liability" theory, citing Rowland v. Christian to show that landowners are liable for injuries to people on their property under negligence principles. 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). However, the complaint focuses instead on the fact that Town and Country Village hired Forbes: "[t]he premises managed by Palo Alto Town and Village Inc. [sic] was and is negligently managed when they hired a security company (Forbes Security) who is known to practice unconstitutional practices targeting homeless people." Compl. at 14. At the same time, Graves alleges that "Forbes Security Inc. had sufficient control over the property to be held liable under a premise's [sic] liability lawsuit" even though he clearly states that "Palo Alto Town and Country Village Inc. own the premises." Compl. at 15.
Though Rowland was superseded by statute (as discussed in Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery, 19 Cal. 4th 714 (2001), the general negligence principles cited that are relevant here were not overturned.
Mr. Graves should clarify whether he intends to bring a negligence claim against Palo Alto Town and Country Village, or whether he seeks damages for civil battery under a vicarious liability theory if he means to allege that Town and Country Village was the employer of Forbes Security and/or the unnamed security guard. Similarly, Mr. Graves should clarify whether he intends to bring a negligence claim against Forbes Security, and if so, whether that negligence claim is only based on premises liability even though Forbes does not own the land in question. As pleaded, the Court cannot discern the contours of these claims. Therefore, the facts alleged are insufficient.
To state a claim for violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the conduct complained of what committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitutional or laws of the United States. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998).
Mr. Graves alleges that the Palo Alto Police Department violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures first by forcing him to sit in the back of their police vehicle when they drove him home against his well and then by "enter[ing] the curtilage" of his home and knocking on the door. Compl. at 15-16. The Court addresses each alleged violation.
First, Graves clearly alleges that he was seized and that the Palo Alto police officers were acting under color of state law. Furthermore, as alleged, the seizure was unreasonable and therefore in violation of Mr. Graves's Fourth Amendment rights. According to the complaint, Graves was simply sitting on a bench outside a grocery store where he had just purchased items when he was given a sobriety test, which he passed, and then forced into a police vehicle. These facts are enough to allege that the seizure was unreasonable.
However, Graves must allege additional facts to support his claim for unreasonable search when the police officer knocked on his door. Though, in general, an officer may not search a residence without first obtaining a warrant, one exception to the warrant requirement exists when an officer knocks on a door to initiate a consensual encounter with a resident. U.S. v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9th Cir. 2012). If the attempt to initiate a consensual encounter fails, the officers should end the knock and talk by retreating from the home. Id. Here, Graves only alleges that the officer knocked at the door and then left. This behavior is consistent with the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement, and therefore Graves has not alleged any constitutional violations in the officer's behavior.
III. Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court hereby recommends GRANTING Mr. Graves LEAVE TO AMEND the following claims, which were insufficiently pleaded in the complaint:
1. Negligence against Palo Alto Town and Country Village and Forbes SecurityThe Court FINDS that Mr. Graves has sufficiently pleaded the following claims:
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Palo Alto Police Department
1. False imprisonment against the unnamed security guard, Forbes Security, and the Palo Alto Police Department
2. Civil battery against the unnamed security guard and Forbes Security
Mr. Graves may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this Order by March 31, 2020. If he fails to do so, the Court will order service by the U.S. Marshals upon defendants Forbes Security, Palo Alto Police Department, and the unnamed security guard for only the false imprisonment and civil battery claims that were found to be sufficient in this Order.
Because Mr. Graves has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case will be reassigned randomly to a district court judge. Mr. Graves may object to this screening order within 14 days of being served with it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to timely object will waive any objection.
Finally, the Court directs Mr. Graves to the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is located in Room 2070 of the San Jose United States Courthouse, and is available by appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. The Pro Se Program can be reached by calling (408) 297-1480.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2020
/s/_________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge