Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Samuels v. Deschutes County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 16, 2013

RICHARD SCOTT SAMUELS, Plaintiff,
v.
DESCHUTES COUNTY, DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF BLANTON, DEPUTY TORY FLORY, personally and individually, RYAN PAUL, and JUSTIN GREENSLIT, and unknown John Does, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1983 and 1985 for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with pendent state claims. Plaintiff alleges that defendants falsely and fraudulently provided information that resulted in an unlawful search of his home and subsequent arrest and prosecution.

Defendants Deschutes County, Sheriff Blanton, and Deputy Flory move to dismiss plaintiffs unlawful search and seizure and conspiracy claims on the grounds that these federal claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants also move to dismiss plaintiffs federal malicious prosecution claim on the ground that plaintiff failed to name a specific constitutional right that he was deprived of as a result of defendants conduct. Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The search warrant at issue in this matter was executed at plaintiffs home on October 22, 2009.[1] The facts are alleged by plaintiff as follows: An individual identified as "concerned citizen" or "CC, " informed law enforcement officers of a possible drug deal at plaintiffs house. Officers presented this information to the state court judge when obtaining the search warrant. However, the officers did not inform the state court judge of the following facts: that "CC" was being sued by plaintiff for an amount exceeding $50, 000; that "CC" had not had contact with plaintiff for over a year; that "CC" had previously assaulted plaintiff in front of witnesses; and that "CC" was working with the police for consideration of criminal charges.

In support of the search warrant, officers also relied on information provided by "Confidential Reliable Informant (CRI) #896" who claimed to have made three narcotics purchases from plaintiff. In obtaining the warrant, plaintiff asserts that defendant Flory made false assertions in a supporting affidavit that the CRI made body wire recording purchases of methamphetamine and that detectives observed the transaction.

Following the institution of criminal charges against plaintiff, defendant Flory refused to provide discovery regarding the CRI who allegedly made the three body wire recordings of drug deliveries. At some point the body wire recordings were received by plaintiffs attorney, but the CDs were blank. Viable CDs were later produced which revealed information that contradicted defendant Flory's affidavit and report.

On March 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to suppress. Criminal charges against plaintiff were dismissed on March 30, 2012. Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2013.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) a complaint is construed in favor of the plaintiff and its factual allegations are taken as true. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true "conclusory" allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Id. "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007).

A motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds may be granted "only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled." Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts federal claims for conspiracy to commit civil rights violations, unlawful. search and seizure, and federal and state law claims for malicious prosecution against Deschutes County, County Sheriff Blanton, Deputy Tory Flory, and other individual defendants. Plaintiff maintains that the actions of defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and state law, because the defendants conspired to provide false ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.