Opinion
22-cv-341-MMA (AGS)
07-29-2022
CORY FELDMAN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS SUTTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. NO. 6]
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff Cory Feldman initiated this action against Thomas Sutton (“Sutton”), the County of San Diego (the “County”), and DOES 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Defendants now move to dismiss two claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff has filed an opposition, to which Defendants replied. See Doc. Nos. 7, 8. The Court found the matter suitable for disposition on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 9. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Because this matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true the allegations set forth in the Complaint. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976).
1
]
This case arises from Plaintiff's contact with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department on March 12, 2021. See Compl. ¶ 14. According to Plaintiff, Sutton, a San Diego County Sheriff's Deputy, along with an unidentified female deputy, DOE 1, entered onto Plaintiff's property and knocked on the front door. See id. ¶¶ 7-8, 14. Plaintiff's wife opened the front door and Plaintiff stood in the vicinity of the doorway. See id. ¶ 15. Sutton was there to “verbally” serve a restraining order connected to a case involving Plaintiff's ex-wife. Id. According to Sutton, the contact was prompted by a 911 call. See id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff's wife explained she “dialed 911 accidentally and immediately hung up.” Id.
Sutton's foot crossed the threshold of the entry during this interaction. See Id. ¶ 15. When Plaintiff asked Sutton to remove his foot, Sutton refused and instead asked Plaintiff to come to the door, advising Plaintiff that he was not under arrest. See Id. When Plaintiff “acknowledged that he would proceed outside,” Sutton forcibly entered the residence, slammed Plaintiff against the wall, forcibly removed him from the residence, and placed him in handcuffs. Id. According to Plaintiff, neither he nor his wife gave Sutton consent to enter their residence. See id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff “promptly informed” Sutton and DOE 1 that he had undergone hip replacement surgery the year prior and was still recovering. See id. Sutton directed Plaintiff to sit on the floor, to which Sutton stated that his physical limitations posed potential risks to him by sitting in such a position. See id. ¶ 17. Sutton then conducted a search of the residence, including mail addressed to Plaintiff. See id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff brings three causes of action against all Defendants: (1) violation of constitutional rights; (2) battery; and (3) negligence.
II. LEGAL STANDARD