Valdez v. Naderi

Background

Stephen Charles Valdez alleged that San Francisco Police Department officers Salar Naderi and Marc Jimenez used excessive force to detain him on January 1, 2023. According to the First Amended Complaint, Naderi pushed Valdez toward a police vehicle, and Jimenez assisted with the detention. When Valdez tried to leave, Jimenez grabbed him and put his hands behind his back. Valdez alleged that Naderi then grabbed his ears, dragged him to the ground, twisted his neck, pressed his weight on his neck and spine, and smashed his face into the concrete. Valdez alleged that he lost consciousness and suffered spinal injuries requiring multiple surgeries and procedures.

Valdez also alleged that Naderi later harassed him and that he relocated to another state because of that alleged harassment. The First Amended Complaint asserted six claims: excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; failure to intervene under the Fourth Amendment; a municipal-liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly called a Monell claim; violation of California’s Bane Act; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and battery.

Motion and judicial notice

The City and County of San Francisco, Naderi, and Jimenez moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The defendants also asked the court to take judicial notice of Valdez’s claims submitted to the City in June 2023 and the City’s July 13, 2023 rejection letter. The court granted that request because the materials were public records whose contents were not reasonably disputable.

Monell claim against individual defendants

The court granted dismissal of the Monell claim against Naderi, Jimenez, and Does 1–10 without leave to amend. A Monell claim seeks to hold a local government liable under § 1983 for an official policy, custom, practice, inadequate training, or ratification that caused a constitutional violation. The court explained that Monell does not provide a basis for individual liability, so the claim could not proceed against the individual defendants.

Monell claim against the City and County

The court also granted dismissal of the Monell claim against the City and County of San Francisco, but granted Valdez leave to amend. The court held that the complaint’s allegations were conclusory and did not identify specific facts showing a policy or custom that was sufficiently persistent and widespread to support municipal liability. The allegations concerning inadequate training or supervision were likewise described as threadbare and conclusory.

The court declined to consider materials Valdez referred to in his opposition, including police reports and other documents, because they were not attached to or incorporated into the First Amended Complaint and were outside the materials ordinarily considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

State-law claims

The court granted dismissal of Valdez’s state-law claims under the Bane Act, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for battery, and granted leave to amend. California’s Government Claims Act generally requires a plaintiff to present claims for money damages to the relevant public entity before filing suit and to plead compliance with that requirement or an excuse for noncompliance.

The court held that the First Amended Complaint did not allege that Valdez submitted a claim to the City, or that the City rejected it. The court considered the City’s rejection letter and found that the City mailed it to Valdez’s then-counsel on July 13, 2023. Because Valdez filed his original complaint on February 22, 2024, the court addressed the defendants’ argument that the state-law claims were filed outside the six-month period following rejection. The court nevertheless allowed amendment because Valdez might be able to allege equitable tolling or another basis showing compliance with, or an excuse from, the claims requirement.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Monell claim against the individual defendants without leave to amend; dismissed the Monell claim against the City and County with leave to amend; and dismissed the state-law claims with leave to amend. The court ordered that the amended complaint be filed by October 23, 2024. The opinion did not decide the merits of whether the alleged force violated the Fourth Amendment or whether Valdez was entitled to relief on the remaining allegations.