Calderon v. City of San Jose

Background

Alejandro Calderon sued the City of San Jose and Officer Jorge Rodriguez-Martinez. The amended complaint alleged that San Jose police officers came to Calderon’s residence on May 22, 2023, questioned his girlfriend about possible domestic violence, left, and returned about five minutes later. Calderon alleged that an unidentified officer pulled him through the screen door, that officers twisted his arm behind his back and applied extremely tight handcuffs even though he was compliant, and that he suffered tendinitis and nerve damage in his left hand. He also alleged that he was arrested and detained at Elmwood Correctional Facility for three days before the domestic-violence charges were dropped.

The amended complaint asserted three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, and retaliation for questioning police conduct under the First Amendment. It also asserted a California Bane Act claim and state-law claims for negligence, assault, battery, and false imprisonment. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and argued that Officer Rodriguez was protected by qualified immunity.

Doe Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against all Doe defendants with leave to amend. The complaint did not allege specific conduct by any unnamed defendant, and Calderon’s counsel explained that the Doe names were only placeholders for defendants who might later be discovered. If Calderon repleads claims against Doe defendants, the court said he must identify their roles, positions, specific acts, and other details supporting the claims.

Federal Claims

The court held that the federal claims did not adequately identify which officer allegedly violated Calderon’s rights. The complaint generally referred to “the officers” or “defendants,” but alleged only that Officer Rodriguez told Calderon he was not detained. The court said Calderon could not rely on a general “team effort” theory of liability and had not alleged that a particular officer was an integral participant in a violation.

For claim 1, the Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure and arrest claim, the court held that Calderon had not alleged enough facts to show an unlawful seizure, detention, or arrest. His girlfriend’s statement that no domestic violence had occurred was not enough, particularly because the complaint did not describe Calderon’s conduct before officers arrived. The court rejected the defendants’ broader argument that the allegations could support only the inference that the officers had a valid reason to respond and could not have mistakenly detained or arrested him.

For claim 2, the court said Calderon had plausibly alleged that the force used against him was excessive. The allegations of being violently pulled from his home, having his arm twisted, and being tightly handcuffed despite compliance and without threatening behavior were sufficient at the pleading stage. But the claim still failed because the complaint did not allege that Officer Rodriguez or another specifically identified defendant applied the handcuffs or otherwise used the force that caused the injury. The court dismissed claim 2 with leave to amend.

At the hearing, Calderon’s counsel advised the court that Calderon conceded the First Amendment retaliation claim. The court dismissed claim 3 with prejudice.

The court did not decide qualified immunity because it dismissed claims 1, 2, and 3 for failure to state a claim and therefore found no reason to reach that issue.

State Claims

The negligence, assault, and battery claims were based on the same alleged force as the excessive-force claim. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that California statutory immunities necessarily protected Officer Rodriguez and the City from claims based on unreasonable force. But because Calderon had not adequately stated an excessive-force claim against a specific defendant, the court dismissed claims 5 through 7 with leave to amend.

The defendants did not identify a specific basis for dismissing the false-imprisonment claim. The court noted that the cited California immunity provision does not protect a public employee from liability for false imprisonment. However, because the court dismissed all federal claims, it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Calderon could reassert and amend claim 8 in a second amended complaint.

The court also declined to dismiss the Bane Act claim based on arguments first raised in the defendants’ reply brief. The court said Calderon could still assert that claim, but because all federal claims were dismissed, it likewise lacked jurisdiction over the Bane Act claim. Calderon could reassert and amend claim 4.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Claims 1, 2, and 5 through 7 were dismissed with leave to amend; claim 3 was dismissed with prejudice; and claims 4 and 8 could be reasserted and amended. The court ordered Calderon to file a second amended complaint by August 16, 2024. It also ordered the defendants to produce body-camera video and an audio recording of the relevant police interaction to Calderon’s counsel as soon as practicable. The opinion states that the parties had previously stipulated to dismiss several other named police-officer defendants with prejudice, and that they confirmed at the hearing that defendant Foss was also dismissed.