United States District Court, D. Arizona
Brian L. Bentley, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
City of Mesa, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
David
G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiffs
Janna and Brian Bentley and their seven minor children bring
this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations
of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against the City of
Mesa, the Director of the Department of Child Safety
(“DCS”), Gregory McKay, DCS employees Cristina
Baggen and Gina Cordova, and City of Mesa Police Officers
Darrel Palmer, Edward Clifford, Laurie Kessler, Domenick
Kaufman, Lauren Glazer, Molly Corfits, and Rob Russo. Doc.
59. Defendants McKay, Baggen, and Cordova move to dismiss
Plaintiffs' malicious prosecution and wrongful
institution of civil proceedings claim (Count 9) under Rule
12(b)(6). Doc. 64. For the following reasons, the Court grant
the motion.[1]
I.
Background.
The
Court takes the factual allegations of Plaintiffs'
amended complaint (Doc. 59) as true for purposes of the
motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). On March 31, 2016, at about 8:00 p.m., Janna
Bentley told her seven-year-old son, T.A., to do his chores,
but T.A. refused. Doc. 59 at 5. At about 10:15 p.m., Janna
went to T.A.'s bedroom to check on him, but two of
T.A.'s siblings reported that he had left. Id.
at 5. Janna searched for T.A. for an hour in the house and
outdoors. Id. at 6. His behavior was not uncommon -
on other occasions, T.A. had hidden from his parents or snuck
off to a neighbor's home. Janna called Brian, who was
working late, around 11:30 p.m. to discuss a plan for finding
T.A., and they remained in contact while Janna and two
Bentley children searched the property and neighborhood.
Id.
Brian
arrived home at 1:30 a.m. on April 1 and began searching for
T.A. Janna fell asleep at 2:30 a.m. Brian knew that T.A. was
not wearing shoes and had not left with his bicycle. The
neighborhood was safe, and families were familiar with each
other's children. Id. With that in mind, Brian
turned on the home's exterior flood lights and unlocked
the doors, and at 3:30 a.m. he laid down by the front door to
wait for T.A.
The
search continued at 6:30 a.m., soon involving more than a
dozen family members and neighbors. Id. at 7. After
Janna called 911 for help at 8:00 a.m., Mesa Police
Department (“MPD”) officers began searching the
neighborhood and a helicopter surveilled. Just over two hours
later, T.A. was spotted hiding in a bush in the front yard of
the Bentley's next-door neighbor. He was nervous and
upset, but not crying or physically harmed. Id. at
7-8.
Brian
carried T.A. into the home, and several officers and DCS
workers followed. Id. at 8-9. Although paramedics
confirmed that T.A. was fine and needed no emergency medical
attention, several officers and DCS workers insisted that
T.A. needed immediate evaluation at the hospital and Brian
and Janna eventually agreed to go. Id. at 9-10. T.A.
was later discharged from the hospital, and he and Janna were
taken into custody and transported to an MPD substation,
where T.A. was interviewed without Janna. Id. at
12-13, 16.
Meanwhile,
around 10:15 a.m., MPD officers had arrived at Great Hearts
Academy where two Bentley children, B.J. and M.J., attended
school. Id. at 13. The officers fabricated a reason
to take custody of the children and ordered the school's
administration not to notify their parents. Id. at
13-14. The officers removed the children and transported them
to the substation to be interviewed by DCS. Id. at
13-16. Janna, T.A., B.J., and M.J. were released later that
afternoon, and a DCS report found no concerns about the
Bentleys' ability to care for and protect their children.
Id. at 15-16.
On
April 21, 2016, DCS's investigation into the Bentley
family was dismissed, concluding that no safety threats or
risks warranted further DCS intervention. Id. at 17.
On May 19, Janna and Brian made a public records request to
MPD, seeking all records related to the events of April 1,
specifically those related to B.J. and M.J.'s removal
from school. On August 9, 2016, the State of Arizona charged
Brian and Janna with two misdemeanors: one count of child
neglect and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a
minor. Id. A jury found them not guilty on all
counts on August 9, 2017. Id. at 18.
In June
2017, DCS had begun another investigation into whether to
place Janna and Brian on the DCS Central Registry, and soon
instituted a civil action against them. Id. at
33-34. DCS concluded its investigation in November with a
decision to enter Janna and Brian in the registry, finding
that they neglected T.A. and failed to provide supervision
while searching for him. Id. at 34-35. The Bentleys
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge who
ruled in their favor. DCS adopted the ALJ's opinion and
did not add the Bentleys to the registry. Id. at
35-36.[2]
II.
Rule 12(b)(6) Standard.
When
analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief
under Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are
taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d
1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). A successful motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) must show either that the complaint lacks
a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege facts sufficient
to support its theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A
complaint that sets forth a cognizable legal theory will
survive a motion to dismiss as long as it contains
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A claim has facial plausibility when “the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id., 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
III.
Discussion.
The
Ninth Circuit has recognized a § 1983 claim for
“malicious prosecution with the intent to deprive a
person of equal protection of the law or otherwise to subject
a person to a denial of constitutional rights[.]”
Poppell v. City of San Diego, 149 F.3d 951, 961 (9th
Cir. 1998) (citing Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d
556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987)). In order to prevail on such a
claim, “a plaintiff ‘must show that the
defendants prosecuted [him] with malice and without probable
cause, and that they did so for the purpose of denying [him]
equal protection or another specific constitutional
right.'” Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368
F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Freeman v. City
of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. ...