Facts

On March 25, 2022, deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department responded to a Burglary Alarm--Audible call at Anthony Perez's house. It was a nighttime. The front door of the house was open. There was a potted plant that was broken in front of the house. The house of Mr. Perez was in the nice area where houses are known to be broken into. The deputies asked the dispatch to call the owner of the house; the dispatch called the owner but received a voicemail.

The deputies conducted their investigation. They saw Mr. Perez upstairs. Mr. Perez had visible injuries: he had a broken pinky and his knee was bleeding. The deputies offered to call for medical assistance. Mr. Perez refused medical treatment. Mr. Perez was intoxicated and incoherent. Mr. Perez said that he had a bottle of tequila. After the deputies checked and secured the residence, they left.

On April 1, 2022, Anthony Perez's wife, Guadalupe Perez, called the Orange County Sheriff's Department for help because Anthony Perez broke into the house and she did not want him there. The call initially came in as a Family/Welfare Check. The call was later changed to a Medical Aid call because of a mental hold. Deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's
Department responded to the call. The deputies arrived and conducted their investigation.

As one of the deputies walked inside the house, he saw a case for a very large knife (approximately 12-18 inches). The deputy asked Anthony Perez and Guadalupe Perez where the knife was. Anthony Perez said that he did not know where the knife was. Guadalupe Perez said that she did not know where the knife was. Guadalupe Perez told the deputy that Anthony Perez grabs the knife whenever he is paranoid. Guadalupe Perez also told another deputy that Anthony Perez was discharged from the military as he has paranoia and hallucinations. Anthony Perez was very sweaty and animated; he made sporadic and irrational statements, such as, for example, he was convinced that one of the deputies was raping his wife.

Since Guadalupe Perez did not want Anthony Perez in the house, the deputies tried different routes in order to separate them. The attempts to have Anthony Perez leave the house were unsuccessful. After that, Guadalupe Perez agreed to leave; she left with the children. Once Guadalupe Perez left, the deputies' plan was also to leave. The deputies told Anthony Perez to stay inside of the house for his own safety.

Despite the deputies' instructions, Mr. Perez got out of the house. Since he was a danger to himself, he was placed on a 5150 hold. The deputy who decided to detain Mr. Perez for a 5150 hold did so because Mr. Perez was a danger to himself; it was unclear where the knife was; Mr. Perez was under the influence of alcohol/drugs; Mr. Perez was paranoid; Mr. Perez
injured himself on March 25, 2022; Mr. Perez was crawling through the window into his own house; Mr. Perez had hallucinations; Mr. Perez was yelling to the neighbors that the deputies were killing him; Mr. Perez was fearful; Mr. Perez was sweating profusely and twitching; and another deputy told the deputy who decided to detain Mr. Perez for a 5150 hold that Guadalupe Perez told her that Anthony Perez was discharged from the Navy due to hallucination and severe paranoia. Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, a decision to detain Mr. Perez for a 5150 hold was made.

Mr. Perez was taken to a hospital. At the hospital, Mr. Perez's urine drug screen was positive for amphetamine and cannabinoids. The clinical impression that was indicated by the attending physician was that Mr. Perez had psychosis, unspecified psychosis type (HCC).

On December 12, 2022, Anthony Perez, then-represented by counsel, filed a verified complaint asserting claims for (1) Assault and Battery; (2) Excessive Use of Force--Unreasonable Arrest and Seizure/False Imprisonment, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) Failure to Properly Screen and Hire, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) Failure to Train, Supervise, and Discipline, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and "Monell"; (5) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Negligence/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Orange County's Sheriff's Department and the County of Orange. Plaintiff claimed that his rights were violated by the deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department on March 25, 2022, and April 1, 2022.

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff's request to proceed pro se was granted and his counsel was relieved.

On April 4, 2024, Defendants County of Orange and the Orange County Sheriff's Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants argued that (1) the County of Orange and the Orange County Sheriff's Department cannot be sued on common law causes of action (Cause of Action No. 1 (Assault & Battery); Cause of Action No. 6 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress); and Cause of Action No. 7 (Negligence/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress); (2) the Second Cause of Action (Excessive Use of Force--Unreasonable Arrest and Seizure/False Imprisonment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Third Cause of Action (Failure to Properly Screen and Hire; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); and Fourth Cause of Action (Failure to Train, Supervise, and Discipline; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell) lack merit because Plaintiff failed to show that there was a local government policy or custom which was the cause in fact of Plaintiff's constitutional deprivation; there was no violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; there was probable cause for Mr. Perez's detention on April 1, 2022; and Plaintiff has not been emotionally harmed or mentally damaged due to the March 25, 2022, or April 1, 2022, encounters with the deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department; and there was no violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act) (Cause of Action No. 5), because there is no substantial evidence that Defendants deprived Mr. Perez of any rights.

On June 14, 2024, Honorable John D. Early, a United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report recommending that the District Court grant Defendants' Motion, in part, as to Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims and dismiss those claims with prejudice; and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to Plaintiff raising them in state court.

On July 16, 2024, United States District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and entered judgment as he had recommended.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that his rights were violated by the deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department on March 25, 2022, and April 1, 2022.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that (1) the County of Orange and the Orange County Sheriff's Department cannot be sued on common law causes of action (Cause of Action No. 1 (Assault & Battery); Cause of Action No. 6 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress); and Cause of Action No. 7 (Negligence/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress); (2) the Second Cause of Action (Excessive Use of Force--Unreasonable Arrest and Seizure/False Imprisonment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Third Cause of Action (Failure to Properly Screen and Hire; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); and Fourth Cause of Action (Failure to Train, Supervise, and Discipline; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell) lack merit because Plaintiff failed to show that there was a local government policy or custom which was the cause in fact of Plaintiff's constitutional deprivation; there was no violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; there was probable cause for Mr. Perez's detention on April 1, 2022; and Plaintiff has not been emotionally harmed or mentally damaged due to the March 25, 2022, or April 1, 2022, encounters with the deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department; and there was no violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act) (Cause of Action No. 5), because there is no substantial evidence that Defendants deprived Mr. Perez of any rights.

Result

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims with prejudice and was granted as to Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice as the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims.

Other Information

Plaintiff was initially represented by Rodriguez Law Group, Inc. On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff's request to proceed pro se was granted and his counsel was relieved.