CJ 320 Case Study: Civil Liability in Public Safety - Ceres Case

This case study analyzes the civil liability case of Estate of Carmen Mendez et al. vs. City of Ceres et al., focusing on the shooting of fifteen-year-old Carmen Mendez by a Ceres City police officer. The plaintiffs, including Carmen's father, brought suit alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the California Constitution, and state laws, claiming civil and constitutional rights violations. The court considered the respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the cases were similar and combining them to safeguard judicial resources. The court held that the civil and constitutional rights of the complainants were violated by the respondents under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I Section 13 of the California Constitution, sections 52.1(b) and 377.60 of California Civil Codes and claims have been made for assault/battery and negligence. The judgment combined the cases, directing all future applications in the lead case, based on the commonality of legal and factual questions and the avoidance of unnecessary delays or costs. The case highlights the complexities of civil liability in public safety, particularly regarding police actions and their consequences.

Running head: CIVIL LIABILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY
CASE SUMMARY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1CIVIL LIABILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY
ESTATE OF CARMEN MENDEZ ET AL. VS. CITY OF CERES ET AL.
ESTATE OF CARMEN MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs., CITY OF CERES, Defendant-
Appellee
No. 1:18-CV-01677-LJO-BAM
US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Judges
 Presiding Judge: Stanley A. Boone
 Referring Judge: Barbara A McAuliffe
 Judge: Lawrence J O’Neill
Facts
Fifteen-year-old Carmen Mendez was seriously shot by a police officer from Ceres City
on August 18, 2018, in a car where Mendez was a traveler. The father of the deceased along with
the relatives (jointly, ‘complainants’), making various allegations under 42 U.S.C. 42 § 1983, as
well as under the California Constitution and rules, have brought suit against the Police
Department of City of Ceres, Brent Smith (Policeman of the Ceres City) and Does 1-50 (jointly,
‘respondents’) (Filings, Circuit & District, 2020).
A motion had been filed by the respondents on February 21, 2019, for the Pleadings
judgment ("motions"), which alleged nine defects in the suit of the complainants, claimed to
judge respondents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Respondents ask this Court to
find that, in this case, the complainants failed to reach the Twombly/Iqbal requirement on their
grievance. It was also had been stated by the respondents that complainants have not been able to

2CIVIL LIABILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY
enter the appropriate party and some of the claims and parties are duplicate. According to them,
some of the complainants are not eligible for a remedy under certain entitlements and there is no
legal justification for such novel claims. Each issue presented by respondents had been denied by
the complainants and they requested the Court to allow their case to continue as filed (Filings,
Circuit & District, 2020).
Legal Standard
It has been stated by Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Procedure that a party can appeal
for judgment after the pleadings are closed–but early enough to not prolong proceedings.
In Dworkin vs. Hustler Magazine Inc. [1989] 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 case, it has been stated by
the court that the motion submitted following Rule 12(c) and another filed following rule 12(b) is
‘functionally similar’. In Nelson vs. City of Irvine [1998] 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 case the court
held that the decision on pleadings shall be properly provided if the moving party is entitled to
rule in law, treating all claims of pleadings as valid. In Pac. W. Grp. Inc. vs. Real-Time Sols. Inc.
[2008] 321 F. App’x 566, 569 case the court was of the view that like a motion according to Rule
12(b)(6), the right to revise a pleading should be given even though there is no appeal unless
there is a pointless amendment.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states that if a common question of
law or fact is involved in any actions before the court, it may either combine each matter for
hearing or trial, or combine the actions, or to prevent excessive cost or postponement issue any
other order (Garity vs. APWU National Labour Org [2016] 828 F.3d 848, 855-56, 9th Cir.).

3CIVIL LIABILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY
Judgment
The court held that Estate of Carmen Mendez Et Al. vs. City of Ceres Et Al. case and
Estate of Carmen Mendez I case both are the same. Both the cases are also focused on credible
specific claims of Carmen Mendez’s death caused by Ceres City law enforcement officials,
Ceres Police Department, and Brent Smith Chief Policeman Brent Smith. It has been observed
from both the cases that the civil and constitutional rights of the complainants are violated by the
respondents under the First, Fourth and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and
Article I Section 13 of the California Constitution, sections 52.1(b) and 377.60 of California
Civil Codes and claims have been made for assault/battery and negligence (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2015). Therefore, as per the court, there exists reasonable ground to combine these cases
as the combination would safeguard judicial resources and there is no deceptive problem,
postponement or expenditure that would affect. Hence, it has been ordered by the court to
combine these cases and it also directs to file all future applications in the Lead case (Filings,
Circuit & District, 2020).
Opinion
If I would be the judge of this case I will also judge this case similarly because if the
question of law or fact is similar in two different cases, then it is justifiable to combine the cases
into a single case to prevent excessive delay and cost. Thus, according to me, the concerning
court gave the judgment accurately.

4CIVIL LIABILITY IN PUBLIC SAFETY
Reference
Filings, D., Circuit, N., & District, E. (2020). Estate of Carmen Mendez et al v. City of Ceres et
al. Retrieved 14 March 2020, from
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/1:2019cv00939/357902
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Conspiracy against rights. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights