Shakespeare v. City of Pasadena

California Court of Appeal Oct 26, 1964 No. Civ. 28263Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the city for false arrest, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment, as the police actions were either lawful, reasonable, or protected by statutory immunity.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff stated a valid cause of action against the city for false arrest, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment.
Whether the detention of the plaintiff by a police officer was reasonable and lawful.
Whether the city is immune from liability for the discretionary acts of its police officers under Government Code section 820.2.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“no cause of action now exists against a municipal corporation for malicious prosecution or, under the facts herein involved, for false arrest.”

“the actions of the police officers here were discretionary and exactly the kind of conduct for which the officer (and therefore his employer) are granted immunity by section 820.2 of the Government Code as adopted in 1963.”

KINGSLEY, J.

This is a companion case to

Shakespeare

Zervos,

2d Civil No. 28065, and

Shakespeare

City of Pasadena, ante,

p. 375 [40 Cal.Rptr. 863] 2d Civil No. 28262. All three cases arise out of the arrest of the present plaintiff and her son, Gene Shakespeare (the plaintiff and appellant in No. 28262). The basic facts leading up to the conduct herein involved are set out in our opinion, concurrently filed, in the suit by Gene Shakespeare against the city and other defendants. As in her son’s complaint, plaintiff has set out in the complaint before us (a second amended complaint as amended) a mass of evidentiary detail concerning the dispute between DePrenn, herself, her son and Zervos, together with a jumble of allegations as to the events involved in her arrest, subsequent incarceration, trial and ultimate acquittal. We are here concerned only with plaintiff’s causes of action, if any, against the city. Although the effect of much of the complaint on any liability of the city is far from clear, we assume, for the present purpose, that plaintiff intended to treat the city as a party defendant in all of the causes of action. Also, as we did in the son’s action, we treat the arrest of plaintiff, at the same time and place as that of her son, as having been a citizen’s arrest by Zervos.

As in Gene Shakespeare’s ease, plaintiff’s allegation of the filing of her claim with the City of Pasadena is defective, and for the same reasons. Also, as in that ease, it seems possible that, if plaintiff otherwise has a valid cause of action, these defects could be remedied by further amendment.

The present plaintiff alleges that her claim was filed on August 6, 1962. Since this was within 100 days of the accrual of any possible causes of action herein involved, the problems as to the applicability of section 715 of the Government Code, discussed at length in Gene Shakespeare’s case, do not arise here. It is clear that the claim was timely filed, no matter what combination of claims statutes are applicable.

[389]

Shakespeare v. City of Pasadena

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief