“[A] claim is deemed to have been rejected by operation of law when the city council refuses or fails to act within the 45-day period provided for in section 912.4.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] claim is deemed to have been rejected by operation of law when the city council refuses or fails to act within the 45-day period provided for in section 912.4.”
- claims based on factual basis that was not noticed in a claim letter do not comply with the requirements of the 2 CTCA
- explaining 23 that California law recognizes respondeat superior liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RACHEL QUINTANAR & REYNALDO Case No.: 3:24-cv-01286-CAB-DEB
12
QUINTANAR,
13 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
Plaintiffs,
14 MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
15
[ECF No. 6]
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 Plaintiffs Rachel and Reynaldo Quintanar bring this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
20
§ 1983 and other state and common law causes against the County of San Diego and
21
unnamed San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Defendants (Deputy Defendants 1–5 and
22
Doe Defendants 1–20). [See generally First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 4.] The
23
County filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ false arrest and negligence claims, Bane Act
24
claim, and the Section 1983 claims against Deputy Defendants 3–5. [ECF No. 6-1 at 5.]
25
The Court grants the motion as it relates to Deputy Defendants 3–5 and partially grants the
26
motion as to the negligence claim.
27
28 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Court takes the alleged material facts as true and construes them in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116,
1120 (9th Cir. 2007). According to the first amended complaint, on Aug. 19, 2023, in San
2 Diego County, Deputy Defendants 1 through 5 (and all 20 Doe Defendants) arrived at a
3 home shared by Rachel and Reynaldo Quintanar in response to a disturbance call. [FAC ¶
4
16.] Deputy Defendant 1 allegedly yelled at Ms. Rachel Quintanar, threatened to punch
5
her, and following through on that threat, broke Ms. Quintanar’s nose. [Id.] Plaintiffs
6
allege that Mr. Reynaldo Quintanar, a sexagenarian, saw the punch and “moved towards
7
his daughter” until he too suffered a beating from Deputy Defendant 1. [Id.] Plaintiffs
8
claim that as the beating of Mr. Quintanar continued, Deputy Defendant 2 tackled Ms.
9
Quintanar, and Deputy Defendants 3–5 followed suit. [Id. ¶ 17.] At some point, Deputy
10
Defendant 1 allegedly informed Deputy Defendants 2–5 that Ms. Quintanar had reached
11
for his gun, a claim Plaintiffs label a fabrication. [Id.] In response, one or more of the
12
13 Deputy Defendants apparently tased Ms. Quintanar in her recumbent position. [Id.]
14 Plaintiffs allege that the attack on Mr. Quintanar resulted in a broken arm, known to
15 Deputy Defendant 1. [Id. ¶ 18.] Mr. Quintanar asked the Deputy Defendants that they not
16 lift him by that arm. [Id.] Plaintiffs claim that the Deputy Defendants ignored this request,
17 exacerbating the pleaded injuries. [Id.]
18 With respect to Ms. Quintanar, a Deputy Defendant apparently transported her to the
19
Alvarado Hospital and informed hospital staff to ignore her cries for medical attention on
20
account of her intoxication. [Id. ¶ 19.] Plaintiffs claim that the Deputy Defendant informed
21
staff that any medical care could be provided by the jail. [Id.] Allegedly, that care never
22
came since Defendant County of San Diego refused to medically intervene on the jailed
23
Ms. Quintanar’s behalf even after a staff member at the jail apparently identified Ms.
24
Quintanar’s wrist as broken. [Id.] As a result of the alleged acts, she reportedly suffered
25
a broken nose, sprained wrist, bruising, and taser-related injuries. [Id. ¶ 21.] Mr. Quintanar
26
purportedly broke his elbow. [Id.] Plaintiffs claim that both father and daughter now fear
27
28 law enforcement, and that Ms. Quintanar suffers from incident-related mental health
problems. [Id.]
The Quintanars assert that no criminal charges were ever filed against them. [Id. ¶
2 22.]
3 II. LEGAL STANDARD
4
To adjudicate Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the familiar standard applies. Fed. R.
5
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a party to file a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon
6
which relief can be granted.” “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
7
sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’”
8
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
9
544, 570 (2007)). “Vague and conclusory allegations” concerning government
10
involvement in civil rights violations are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Ivey
11
v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
12
13 III. ANALYSIS
14 A. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled a False Imprisonment Claim Against the
15 County
16 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a false imprisonment
17 claim. They fail to provide the Court with any legal framework (as opposed to reciting the
18 12(b)(6) standard) that governs their argument. The Court has jurisdiction over the false
19
imprisonment claim, as it does with the other state/common law claims, under its
20
supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The County has not moved to dismiss the
21
federal question claims that provide this Court with original jurisdiction.
22
Under California law, false imprisonment “consists of the ‘nonconsensual,
23
intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of
24
time, however short.’” Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 872 P.2d 559, 567 (Cal. 1994) (quoting
25
Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n, 762 P.2d 46, 63 (Cal. 1988)). “The only mental state required
26
. . . is the intent to confine, or to create a similar intrusion”; the intent element need “not
27
28 entail an intent or motive to cause harm.” Id. “The elements are (1) nonconsensual,
intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, (3) for an appreciable
period of time, however brief.” Gutzalenko v. City of Richmond, 723 F. Supp. 3d 748, 761
(N.D. Cal. 2024) (citing Easton v. Sutter Coast Hosp., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 316, 323 (Ct. App.
2 2000)). Vicarious liability under California law is supplied by Gov. Code § 815.2.
3 Taking the pleaded facts as true, Plaintiffs have alleged each element of the false
4
imprisonment claim (at least on part of Deputy Defendants 1–2). Plaintiffs plead (1) the
5
use of nonconsensual force in the form of restraints on the Quintanars, (2) that Plaintiffs
6
were arrested without a warrant and without probable cause, and (3) that the confinement
7
lasted for some time (even if brief).
8
Defendants’ principal argument is that Plaintiffs themselves allege that Deputy
9
Defendant 1 identified a threat on part of Ms. Quintanar—and that fact supports probable
10
cause. [ECF No. 6-1 at 7.] “California law protects a law enforcement officer from liability
11
for false arrest or false imprisonment where the officer, acting within the scope of his or
12
13 her authority, either (1) effects a lawful arrest or (2) has reasonable cause to believe the
14 arrest is lawful.” Marsh v. San Diego Cnty., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1054 (S.D. Cal. 2006)
15 (citing Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003)). But as alleged,
16 that is not the full story: Plaintiffs plead that Deputy Defendant 1 lied when he made that
17 claim. [FAC ¶ 17.] At this stage, the Court must take the facts in the light most favorable
18 to the Plaintiff and accordingly denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss the false
19
imprisonment claim.
20
B. Plaintiffs Did Not Timely File Their Second Claim Letters
21
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they timely filed their claim for damages,
22
pursuant to Government Code § 910 with Defendant County of San Diego. [FAC ¶ 13.]
23
Defendants contest that. Under the California Tort Claims Act, before one can sue a
24
California government entity or employee for damages, he must timely present his claim
25
to the entity, which then must reject it in whole or part. See, e.g., Portillo v. City of Nat’l
26
City, No. 20-CV-2429 W (MDD), 2022 WL 1004238, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022); see
27
28 also Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4.
Plaintiff did not attach any claim letter to the complaint. “Generally, district courts
may not consider material outside the pleadings when assessing the sufficiency of a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998,
2 1002 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The incorporation-by-reference
3 doctrine, however, permits the Court to treat “certain documents as though they are part of
4
the complaint itself . . . if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document
5
forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 1002. Defendants provided a copy of
6
Plaintiffs’ claim letters, supported by a sworn declaration, as an exhibit in their motion to
7
dismiss. [ECF No. 6-3.] Plaintiffs do not contest the authenticity of those letters. As
8
Plaintiffs refer to and rely on the claim letters in their complaint, the Court finds it proper
9
to incorporate the letters into the pleadings by reference.
10
Between them, Plaintiffs have filed four separate claim letters (two for each
11
Plaintiff): one pair on February 16, 2024, [ECF No. 6-3 at 4–8], and the second pair on
12
13 August 19, 2024 [ECF No. 6-3 at 9–16]. Defendants do not contest the initial claim letters’
14 timeliness. But Plaintiffs appear to have filed the August claim letters after Defendants
15 filed a motion to dismiss. The Court resolves whether Plaintiffs timely filed the amended
16 claim letters before moving on to claim-based objections to the initial claim letters.
17 A claimant may amend a claim until the later of: (1) the date when the entity takes
18 final action on the claim, or (2) the time to file a timely claim expires pursuant to Cal. Gov.
19
Code § 911.2. Cal. Gov. Code § 910.6. Timely claim presentation is not merely a
20
procedural requirement but is “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action
21
against defendant” and thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. State of California
22
v. Superior Court, 90 P.3d 116, 119 (Cal. 2004) (quoting Williams v. Horvath, 548 P.2d
23
1125, 1130 (Cal. 1976)).
24
The County had 45 days to act on a claim. Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4(a). If a claim is
25
not acted upon within those 45 days, Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4(c) sets forth a provision
26
whereby the claim is deemed rejected (a final action by the board). See Potstada v. City of
27
28 Oakland, 106 Cal. Rptr. 705, 708 (Ct. App. 1973) (“[A] claim is deemed to have been
rejected by operation of law when the city council refuses or fails to act within the 45-day
period provided for in section 912.4.”). As such, plaintiffs should have filed an amended
claim no later than February 19, 2024 (i.e. 6 months from the date of the alleged incident)
2 or, at the latest, April 1, 2024, (i.e. the date the County rejected the claims by force of law).
3 The Court will thus not consider the amended claim letters.
4 C. The Bane Act Claim Complies with the Requirements of the CTCA
5
Looking to only the February claim letters, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs provided
6
insufficient facts (and therefore inadequate notice) relating to their Bane Act claim.
7
Ms. Quintanar’s initial claim letter contains the following description:
8
Unknown Sheriff deputy entered claimant’s home and punched her in the face,
9
fracturing her nose. A second unknown deputy then tackled claimant and
10 tased her.
11
[ECF No. 6-3 at 4.] Mr. Quintanar’s follows:
12
Unknown Sheriff deputy entered claimant’s home and assaulted claimant’s
13 daughter. The unknown deputy then punched and kneed claimant multiple
14 times, then threw him on the ground, breaking his arm. Although deputies
knew or should have known that the deputy had broken claimant’s arm, the
15
unknown deputies then picked claimant up off the floor by his arm, further
16 injuring the broken arm.
17
[Id. at 7.] Both contain the following “fault statement”:
18
Unknown San D[ie]go County Sheriff’s deputies used excessive force, and
19
unreasonably searched and seized claimant.
20
[See id. at 10.]
21
To comply with the CTCA, a claimant must state the date, place, circumstances of
22
23 the claim, name of any employees responsible if known, and a general description of the
24 injury, damage, or loss as is known at the time the claim is presented to the entity. See Cal.
25 Gov. Code § 910; see also Sanders v. City of Fresno, No. CIVA 05-0469 AWISMS, 2006
26 WL 1883394, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2006). These requirements are intended to “provide
27 the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to
28 settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of San Jose v. Superior
Ct., 525 P.2d 701, 706 (Cal. 1974). “Although federal courts do not have jurisdiction over
the underlying petitions, it is proper for federal courts to determine whether a plaintiff
2 bringing tort claims against a public entity has complied with the [C]TCA.” Acevedo v.
3 City of Farmersville, No. 1:18-cv-01747-LJO-SAB, 2019 WL 3003996, at *6 (E.D. Cal.
4
July 10, 2019) (citing United States v. State of Cal., 655 F.2d 914, 918–19, n.3 (9th Cir.
5
1980)).
6
The CTCA, however, does not require a plaintiff “to specify each cause of action he
7
intends to assert; rather, it requires only that ‘each cause of action . . . be[] reflected in a
8
timely claim.’” Carr v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 19-CV-1139 JLS (MDD), 2020 WL
9
1046874, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Nelson v.
10
California, 139 Cal. App. 3d 72, 79 (1982)). “Because the CTCA is designed to give a
11
public entity ‘notice sufficient for it to investigate and evaluate the claim . . . [it] need not
12
13 contain the detail and specificity required of the pleading, but need only fairly describe
14 what the entity is alleged to have done.’” Garber v. City of Clovis, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1204,
15 1216 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010) (citing Stockett v. Ass’n of Cal. Water Agencies Joint
16 Powers Ins. Auth., 99 P.3d 500, 502 (Cal. 2004)).
17 The caselaw makes clear that the propriety of notice depends on the facts alleged in
18 the claim form. “A complaint’s fuller exposition of the factual basis beyond that given in
19
the claim is not fatal, so long as the complaint is not based on an entirely different set of
20
facts.” Stockett, 99 P.3d at 503 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only where there has
21
been a ‘complete shift in allegations, usually involving . . . acts or omissions committed at
22
different times or by different persons than those described in the claim,’ have courts
23
generally found the complaint barred.” Id. (quoting Blair v. Superior Ct., 218 Cal. App.
24
3d 221, 226 (Ct. App. 1990)). Indeed, “it is permissible to plead additional theories where
25
the additional theories [are] based on the same factual foundation as those in the claim, and
26
the claim provide[s] sufficient information to allow the public agency to conduct an
27
28 investigation into the merits of the claim.” Carr, 2020 WL 1046874, at *4 (alterations in
original) (internal quotations mark omitted).
Defendants’ argument is familiar: “Plaintiffs’ claim is devoid of any allegations that
2 could be construed to satisfy the second ‘threats, intimidation, or coercion’ element of a
3 Bane Act claim.” [ECF No. 6-1 at 6.]
4
“The Bane Act provides a cause of action for interference ‘by threats, intimidation,
5
or coercion’ or attempted interference, ‘with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual
6
or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the
7
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.’” Muhammad v. Garrett, 66 F.
8
Supp. 3d 1287, 1295 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). To prove
9
a Bane Act claim, plaintiff must demonstrate interference with a constitutional right
10
accompanied by coercion. Id. (citing Jones v. Kmart Corp., 949 P.2d 941, 943–44 (Cal.
11
1998)).
12
13 Both claim letters allege acts relating to the unwanted use of force or seizure. The
14 Ninth Circuit has held that “the Bane Act does not require the ‘threat, intimidation[,] or
15 coercion’ element of the claim to be transactionally independent from the constitutional
16 violation alleged” as long as the claimant shows the defendant had a “specific intent” to
17 commit the constitutional violation. Reese v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1043
18 (9th Cir. 2018). The specific intent requirement is satisfied where the defendant acted with
19
“[r]eckless disregard of the right at issue.” Estate of Serna v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 20-
20
cv-2096-LAB-MSB, 2022 WL 827123, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (quoting Cornell
21
v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356, 386 (Ct. App. 2017)) (alteration
22
in original).
23
There is no question that “tackling” Ms. Quintanar or incapacitating Mr. Quintanar
24
(with force) raises the specter of coercion. The County has argued similarly before, and
25
the Court has rejected it. Bradley v. City of San Diego, No. 3:24-CV-01216-CAB-JLB,
26
2025 WL 20437, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2025). The same reasoning applies here.
27
28 Plaintiffs’ claim letter states that an unknown Sheriff’s deputy punched Ms. Quintanar in
the nose, her face, and that a second deputy tackled and tased her. [ECF No. 6-3 at 4.] Mr.
Quintanar’s letter states that after assaulting Ms. Quintanar, an unknown deputy punched
and kneed Mr. Quintanar multiple times, threw him to the ground, broke his arm, and
2 deliberately picked him up by that same arm. [ECF No. 6-3 at 8.] Plaintiffs have clearly
3 supplied facts—in the form of an alleged vicious and unnecessary beating—that show
4
reckless disregard of the rights at issue.
5
The Court denies Defendants’ challenge to the Bane Act claim based on the CTCA.
6
D. Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claim Is Partially Dismissed
7
Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligence claim under two theories: one for
8
failure to provide proper notice under the CTCA, and the second, for failing to state a claim
9
under Rule 12(b)(6). As discussed, the Court is only considering the February claim letters.
10
1. Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claim Partially Complies with the CTCA
11
Courts have routinely rejected the argument that claim forms describing intentional
12
13 torts cannot support a later claim for negligence, as long as the core facts from which the
14 negligence claim arises remain the same. See Acevedo, 2019 WL 3003996, at *8 (finding
15 plaintiff complied with CTCA in bringing intentional infliction of emotional distress cause
16 of action, despite not describing any emotional or mental injuries in written claim to city,
17 because IIED claim stemmed from “same core acts as plaintiff’s other causes of action,
18 i.e., the allegedly excessive force used”).
19
The CTCA does not force Plaintiffs “to specify each cause of action [they] intend[]
20
to assert.” Carr, 2020 WL 1046874, at *4. This Court concludes that any negligence claim
21
arising from the alleged beating/tackling of Mr. and Ms. Quintanar was well-captured by
22
the claim forms’ descriptions of the events that supposedly occurred on August 19, 2023
23
at the Quintanar home. See Cal. Gov. Code § 910 (claim form must include date, place,
24
circumstances, and description of injury and damages).
25
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Defendants that those claim letters were
26
deficient in providing notice of any acts at the Alvarado Hospital or the jail. Although a
27
28 cause of action need not be specified in a claim, none of these facts pleaded in the first
amended complaint were even hinted at in any claim letter. See Fall River Joint Unified
Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct., 253 Cal. Rptr. 587, 589 (Ct. App. 1988) (claims based on factual
basis that was not noticed in a claim letter do not comply with the requirements of the
2 CTCA). The Court finds that Plaintiffs did not comply with the CTCA for any negligence
3 theory (failure to train, failure to provide medical care, etc.) based on the alleged events
4
outside the Quintanar home and partially dismisses Plaintiffs’ negligence claim without
5
leave to amend.1 Likewise, Plaintiffs concede that they have not provided sufficient facts
6
for a failure-to-train claim. [ECF No. 7 at 4.] As such, the allegations in Para. 49 of the
7
FAC are also dismissed with without leave to amend.
8
2. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Stated a Negligence Claim Based on the
9
Events at the Quintanar Home
10
As it relates to a 12(b)(6) determination of whether Plaintiffs stated a negligence
11
claim for the core facts identified in the claim letters (the acts allegedly occurring at the
12
13 Quintanar home), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim includes “vague
14 allegations of intentional actions of deputies,” not negligent acts. [ECF No. 6-1 at 7.] They
15 also argue that the County cannot be held responsible, as a matter of law, for a negligence
16 claim.
17 First, under certain circumstances, the County can be held liable for the actions and
18 omissions of its employees. Pursuant to Section 815.2(a) of the California Government
19
Code, “[a] public entity is liable for any injury proximately caused by an act or omission
20
of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or
21
omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that
22
employee.” See Gant v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining
23
that California law recognizes respondeat superior liability); D.C. by & through Cabelka
24
v. Cnty. of San Diego, 445 F. Supp. 3d 869, 897 (S.D. Cal. 2020).
25
26 The dispositive question for the Court is whether Plaintiffs stated a claim against at
least one Deputy Defendant for negligence. The elements of a negligence cause of action
27
28
1 Insofar as any other state or common law claim relies on the same facts deemed
noncompliant with the CTCA, the Court will dismiss those at the proper juncture should
are: (1) a legal duty to use due care; (2) a breach of such legal duty; (3) the breach was the
2 proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting
3 from the breach of the duty of care. See Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 911 P.2d 496 (Cal.
4
1996). And the facts of an excessive force claim can support a negligence claim under
5
California law: under California law, police officers have a duty not to use excessive force.
6
See Munoz v. City of Union City, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521, 538 (Ct. App. 2004). Whether
7
officers breached such duty is analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the Fourth
8
Amendment to the Constitution. David v. City of Fremont, No. C 05-46 CW, 2006 WL
9
2168329, at *21 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2006) (citing Munoz, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 539–43).
10
As the Court previously explained, Plaintiffs have stated an excessive force claim,
11
at least against Deputy Defendants 1 & 2. Those same alleged facts support a negligence
12
13 claim (unreasonable force, inappropriate raising of Mr. Quintanar’s arm). This claim
14 applies to the County through Section 815.2(a). Although Defendants have not moved to
15 dismiss the negligence claim against the Defendants 3–5 specifically, further development
16 of the record may limit the class of defendants to which this claim applies.
17 E. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Sec. 1983 Claim Against Deputy Defendants
18 3–5
Defendants move to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against the Deputy Defendants
19
3–5. To sufficiently plead a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiffs must set forth facts that each
20
defendant personally violated their constitutional rights. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
21
1045 (9th Cir. 1989). This requires an “individualized” assessment of causality to attribute
22
23 conduct (or lack thereof) that allegedly forms the basis of a constitutional deprivation. Leer
24 v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988).
25 Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts identifying how Deputy Defendants 3-
26 5 contributed to any constitutional violation. The sole facts pleaded against Deputy
27 Defendants 3–5 are their (collective) potential involvement in tackling Ms. Quintanar.
28 From the pleadings, it is unclear what those Deputy Defendants individually did to
contribute to the alleged constitutional harms. “The inquiry into causation must be
1 |) individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant
2 || whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Id. (citing
3 || Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims against
Deputy Defendants 3—5 are dismissed with leave to amend.
° IV. CONCLUSION
° The Court dismisses any negligence theory based on alleged facts unrelated to the
events at the Quintanar home without leave to amend. The Court dismisses the Section
9 1983 claims against Deputy Defendants 3-5 under Rule 12(b)(6) with leave to amend.
10 Plaintiff may file any amended complaint by Jan. 28, 2025.
It is SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: January 14, 2025 €
15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
16 United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12