PERCY ANDERSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants County of Los Angeles (the "County"), Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Jim McDonnell (collectively "County Defendants") (Docket No. 23) and a Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant City of Los Angeles (the "City") (Docket No. 25), in which defendants Charlie Beck, Carlos Bedolla, Jeffrey Wolman, William Chamberlain, Scott Blackman, and Jimmie Fields (collectively "City Defendants") have joined (Docket No. 30). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds these matters are appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for July 6, 2015, is vacated, and the matters taken off calendar.
Plaintiffs Darnell Monday ("Darnell"), LaTanya Monday ("LaTanya"), and Ralph Monday ("Ralph") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), commenced this action on May 11, 2015. According to the Complaint, LaTanya called 911 at approximately 4:30 a.m. on December 25, 2014, to obtain emergency mental health services for her adult son Darnell, who has a history of mental health and psychiatric issues, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Plaintiffs allege that eight squad cars with approximately 12 members of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") responded to the 911 call. The Complaint alleges that after separating Darnell from his family, and ordering the family back into their home, at least seven officers struck Darnell in the face, arms, and ribs.
Darnell was subsequently arrested for battery on a peace officer in violation of California Penal Code section 243(c)(2) and transported to LAPD's 77th Street Police Station, where he was held for two days. The Complaint alleges that while he was held at the 77th Street Police Station, Darnell was not provided with necessary medical and psychiatric care, and was forced to sleep on the cell floor in the nude. According to the Complaint, on December 27, 2014, Darnell was transferred to the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD") and Men's Central Jail and perhaps Twin Towers Correctional Facility, where he was forced to sleep on the cell floor in the nude, and not provided with necessary medical and psychiatric care. Darnell was transferred to Olive View Medical Center on December 30, 2014, and placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. Darnell was then transferred to Mission Hospital before being released.
Plaintiffs submitted government tort claims to both the City and County on January 5, 2015. Darnell was subsequently named in a misdemeanor criminal complaint for battery on a peace officer pursuant to California Penal Code sections 242-243(c)(2) and resisting, delaying, or obstructing the discharge of a peace officer's duties pursuant to California Penal Code section 148(a)(1). Those charges remain pending.
The Complaint alleges claims for: (1) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) denial of medical care in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) denial of psychiatric care in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process clause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) municipal liability pursuant to
Generally, plaintiffs in federal court are required to give only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While the Federal Rules allow a court to dismiss a cause of action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," they also require all pleadings to be "construed so as to do justice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 8(e). The purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to "`give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"
However, in
In their Motions to Dismiss, the City and County Defendants make numerous arguments concerning the Complaint's pleading deficiencies. First, the City and County Defendants assert that Darnell's claims are premature and should be stayed or that the Court should abstain from considering them until after the pending criminal charges are resolved. Defendants additionally contend that LaTanya and Ralph lack standing and otherwise fail to state viable claims for the civil rights violations allegedly suffered by Darnell, that the Complaint impermissibly groups defendants together without providing adequate notice of which defendants are alleged to have done what, that several of the claims are either duplicative or rely on an inapplicable constitutional provision, that the claims against Sheriff McDonnell, Chief Beck, LASD, and LAPD are duplicative of the claims against the City and County, that the municipal liability and conspiracy claims are not well-pleaded, that at least some of the state law claims are subject to immunity defenses, and that the claims otherwise fail to allege sufficient facts or assert cognizable claims.
Before addressing the merits of each of the arguments asserted by the defendants, the Court concludes that this action should be stayed pending the resolution of the criminal charges against Darnell.
At a minimum, the criminal charges against Darnell implicate the unreasonable seizure and false arrest claims asserted in this action. The criminal charges may also be relevant to the resolution of the Complaint's excessive force claim.
Only after the criminal charges are resolved will the Court address the remaining arguments contained in the Motions to Dismiss. However, the Court notes that many of those arguments are well-taken and that Plaintiffs will have to substantially amend their Complaint if they elect to pursue their claims in this Court. The Court additionally notes that its common practice, one that, based on the allegations contained in the Complaint, it sees no reason to deviate from in this instance, is to bifurcate the
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Motions to Dismiss in part and stays this action pending resolution of Darnell's criminal charges. The parties shall file with the Court a Status Report no later than 14 days after the criminal charges are resolved in the Superior Court. Once the Court receives the Status Report, the Court will either proceed to rule on the remaining arguments contained in the Motions to Dismiss, set a status conference, or make further orders as appropriate based on the contents of the Status Report. The Court orders this action administratively closed and removed from the Court's active caseload until further application by the parties or order of this Court.