Federal judge OKs trial on claims contesting liability of sheriff’s department for Tehama County rampage

Victims of a 2017 shooting rampage in Tehama County that left five people dead and at least 12 wounded can continue their case against the sheriff's department on claims that deputies failed to protect the public, a federal judge has ruled.

In a 31-page order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California found that plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence to support their claims that the sheriff's department missed several opportunities to arrest or disarm shooter Kevin Neal. Troy McFayden et al., v. County of Tehama et al., 18-cv-02912-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal. Filed Aug. 4, 2020).

"This is a case grounded in tragic circumstances," Nunley wrote.

Ten months before Neal went on the shooting spree in November 2017, he was arrested, charged and issued a restraining order prohibiting him from possessing any guns or ammunition because of his connection to several prior shootings, assaults and stabbings. The order stipulated that officers were to arrest him should they find evidence he violated its terms.

Over the course of the next few months, at least nine people reported violations of the order to authorities, including Neal's girlfriend, who reported a gun missing from her possession, and multiple neighbors who reported hearing and seeing Neal firing shots from his house. Authorities were also made aware that ammunition was littered in plain sight on his property, court records show.

Plaintiffs asserted in briefs that the sheriff's department should be held liable for the shootings because it neglected to act on those reports and enforce the restraining order.

"The sheriff had standing authority, by the terms of the criminal protective order, to search Neal's property without a warrant, but made no attempt to do so," wrote Cathleen T. Barr of Barr & Mudford LLP in a brief filed in May 2019. "The sheriff's office justified its decision not to arrest Neal in part by asserting that as long as Neal was shooting guns in a safe manner, he was within the law."

The county sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that they were speculative at best and not grounded in facts.

"When law enforcement investigated the calls, they did not find probable cause to search [Neal's] house or arrest him," wrote Jonz C. Norine of law firm Kenny & Norine in a response filed in May 2019. "No one could have predicted he would later go on a murder spree."

While Nunley rejected virtually every claim the plaintiffs made, including one that argued the department failed to adequately train deputies on how to respond to violations of restraining orders, he granted their claim arguing deputies had plenty of evidence to establish probable cause to arrest and disarm Neal well before he went on the killing rampage.

"Whether defendants violated this duty is a question for the fact-finder," Nunley wrote. "Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to allege probable cause that Neal had firearms in violation of the restraining order."

Plaintiffs have until Sept. 3 to file an amended complaint on these claims.

Attorneys for neither party responded to requests for comment.