Facts

On Nov. 25, 2012, plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez was walking home from job at a local motel, where he worked as a handyman. Defendant Oakley Police Officer Roger Canady was in pursuit of an armed robbery suspect who had robbed a liquor store nearby. As Rodriguez was arriving home, Canady drove up to him and ordered him to lie down on the ground. Rodriguez questioned why he was being ordered to lie down, but Canady responded by drawing his gun and ordering his police dog to attack. Other officers arrived and continued to yell at Rodriguez to stay on the ground, while the dog continued to attack and bite him.

The victim of the robbery pointed out that Rodriguez as the wrong guy, but the officers left Rodriguez in handcuffs. Witnesses who observed the events complained to the officers about allowing a dog to attack an unarmed man, but the police officers simply ordered the witnesses to return to their homes. Rodriguez was later treated for 56 puncture wounds.

Rodriguez filed suit against the County of Contra Costa, the Oakley Police Dept., the Pittsburg Police Dept, the City of Pittsburg and various others.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Rodriguez argued that his civil rights had been violated, and that he had been assaulted and battered. He also claimed the officers taunted him even after the victim confirmed his innocence. He also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of California law, and engligence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The City of Pittsburg moved to dismiss Rodriguez's claims with respect to it, arguing that he had not established a valid theory of liability with regards to them.

Result

The court dismissed Rodriguez's claims in part, finding that he had failed to establish a valid theory of liability with regards to the City of Pittsburg. Plaintiff's second, third and sixth claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, were dismissed without prejudice. And plaintiff's fourth and fifth claims, violation of the Ralph Act and Bane Act were also dismissed without prejudice, as were plaintiff's claims for punitive damages.