United States District Court, D. Utah
GUY M. DOMAI, Plaintiff,
STEVEN B. WOOLDRIDGE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Guy M. Domai asserts a claim against Sergeant Steven B.
Wooldridge based on an incident that occurred on Sunday,
August 19, 2017 in a public park. Mr. Domai was detained,
questioned, and then transported to a hospital for a mental
health evaluation. Mr. Domai asserts his constitutional
rights were violated during the incident. Sergeant Wooldridge
filed a Motion to Dismiss. On December 20, 2018, a Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommends
that Mr. Domai's Amended Complaint (ECF N. 9) be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Report
& Recommendation, at 7 (ECF No. 28). Mr. Domai filed an
Objection to it (ECF No. 33). For the reasons stated below,
the court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation and
grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss.
Domai asserts he was at Liberty Park on Sunday, August 19,
2017, working on cases he had filed in court. Around 11:00
a.m., he took a break to eat. Shortly afterwards, he observed
Sergeant Wooldridge talking with two individuals who had been
playing volleyball at the park. The two individuals allegedly
were pointing at Mr. Domai as they talked to Sergeant
Wooldridge. Mr. Domai further asserts that about five minutes
later two other police cars arrived, and those officers were
then seen talking with Sergeant Wooldridge and the two
volleyball players. Two officers subsequently approached him
“aggressively . . . as if they wanted to arrest
him.” Amended Complaint, at 2 (ECF No. 9).
Domai asserts he stood up from the park bench and started
backing away from the officers. In response, “[t]he
officers started following him, telling him to not be scared,
that everything will be ok.” Id. Mr. Domai
asserts he kept backing up and asking them why they were
“charging” him. Id. He then stopped and
the officers immediately put him in handcuffs. When he asked
them why they were detaining him, the officers responded
“that somebody called in and claimed that the plaintiff
was deliberately making threats to people there with a
Domai denied the allegation “and asked who made that
complaint.” Sergeant Wooldridge, the “highest
officer on duty, refused to provide that
Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action for a violation
of due process. Although not stated expressly, the claim
appears to have been brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
based on the elements Mr. Domai asserts he has to prove. Mr.
Domai asserts he has to show (1) “a constitutionally
protected property interest, ” and (2) “[t]hat He
was deprived of that interest without due process.”
Amended Complaint, at 3. He asserts he had the
constitutionally protected “right to know what He was
being accused of.” Id. He further asserts he
was deprived of his rights because “the officers
prevented the plaintiff the right to defend himself or offer
an explaination [sic] to the so called crime that He was
being accused of.” Id.
Sergeant Wooldridge filed his motion to dismiss, he attached
a copy of the Salt Lake City Police Department CAD Call to
the motion on the basis that “Mr. Domai referred to the
report made to the police in his Complaint.” Mot. to
Dismiss, at 2 n.3 (ECF No. 15). The CAD Call stated a caller
and a second-party caller were on scene reporting an incident
in progress. CAD Call, at 3 (ECF No. 15-1). The caller
reported that a man was walking around with a kitchen knife 6
to 7 inches long. Id. at 1, 3. The caller then
reported the man was sitting at a table near the volleyball
courts, and “was on his phone stating ‘I am right
here, I can handle it.'” Id. at 1.
Sergeant Wooldridge arrived on the scene at 13:56:59.
Id. He reported “walking in from north
end” at 13:58:06. Id. By 13:59:45 he had a
“visual of susp w/of north men's room.”
Id. About a minute later at 14:00:52, Sergeant
Wooldridge reported “M was rambling talking about
slashing people in face.” Id. Four minutes
later, Sergeant Wooldridge requested a different supervisor
also be on the scene because he and the “susp don't
have positive prior interaction.” Id. at 1-2.
The report then confirms that Mr. Domai was transported to
the University of Utah for a psychological evaluation.
Id. at 2.
the events in the CAD Call occurred on Sunday, August 14,
2016 around 2:00 p.m. Mr. Domai asserts the events in his
complaint occurred on Sunday, August 19, 2017 around 11:00
a.m. The complaint and CAD Call differ as to the day of the
month, year, and time.
Wooldridge filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 7, 2018 (ECF No.
15). Mr. Domai asked for two extensions of time to respond,
which were granted. Orders Extending Time (ECF Nos. 18, 25).
The orders extended the time to respond until August 30,
interim, Mr. Domai filed a 48-page document of proposed
subpoenas to various officers. Subpoena Requests (ECF No.
22). Among other items, the proposed subpoenas contain
interrogatories to various individuals, a request for the
identity of the callers, and a request for the audio or video
recording of Sergeant Wooldridge's conversation with the
complainants because the CAD Call had their information
redacted. See e.g., id. at 4, 10, 13. Mr.
Domai further sought information to prove the incident at the
park was “premeditated.” Id. at 15. He
included “Notes to Court” that allege Salt Lake
City is racist, law enforcement “constantly track
down” through “scare and intimidation tactics,
” and this court engages in “quick, systematic
and early discarding of cases by abusively using . . . court
processes such as reports and recommendations” that
deny cases “regardless of the true nature of the
case.” Id. at 9. Sergeant Wooldridge
objected to the subpoenas on the grounds that they were
improper and outside the scope of Rule 45 (ECF No. 21).
August 31, 2018, Mr. Domai filed a response contending that
the subpoenas were appropriate. He also referenced the Motion
to Dismiss and asserted he “was handcuffed, detained
and taken to the University of Utah for psychological
evaluation without his will, without probable cause
or any comprehensible reason.” Response, at 1 (ECF No.
26) (emphasis added). He further asserted he needed discovery
before he could respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Then, more
than two months late, Mr. Domai filed his Memorandum in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on November 5, 2018 (ECF
December 20, 2018, the Report and Recommendation was issued
recommending that Mr. Domai's complaint be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Report &
Recommendation, at 7 (ECF No. 28). The Report was based on
the same grounds stated in the Motion to Dismiss and on the
standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It informed Mr.
Domai he had fourteen days to file an objection. Because the
Report recommended dismissal, the Magistrate Judge declined
to address Mr. Domai's proposed subpoenas Id. at
January 7, 2019, eighteen days after the Report was entered,
Mr. Domai sent an email to the court stating that he had not
received the recommendation until January 4, 2019 because he
had moved to St. Louis, Missouri, and that he would be asking
for a continuance. Email (ECF No. 29). The Motion for
Extension was received on January 10, 2019, and the court
granted an extension until January 24, 2019 to file an
Objection. Order, at 1 (ECF No. 32). Mr. ...