Parcell v. City Of San Jose

Background

Derek Robert Parcell sued the City of San Jose and Officer Ismael Perez over Perez’s response to a traffic accident on December 12, 2024. Parcell alleged that Perez fabricated the police report by stating that Parcell was at fault when the other driver was at fault, and that Perez failed to conduct a fair investigation. Parcell asserted federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims.

Parcell was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The court had previously screened his original complaint, dismissed it, and allowed him to amend a due-process claim. The court had explained that an inadequate law-enforcement investigation generally does not support a § 1983 claim and that a fabricated report must be connected to a resulting loss of liberty for a due-process claim. The court also limited the amendment to that due-process claim and barred adding claims or parties without permission.

Claims in the First Amended Complaint

The first amended complaint asserted three federal claims, all based on the alleged false police report:

Although the amended complaint added claims in violation of the prior screening order, the court considered all three federal claims.

Court’s Analysis

For the fabrication-of-evidence claim, the court held that Parcell did not allege that the allegedly false report caused a deprivation of liberty or another constitutional right. Parcell alleged financial loss, reputational damage, and emotional distress, but the court stated that it was unaware of cases treating those allegations as sufficient for a constitutional deprivation based on fabricated evidence. The court also noted that deliberate-fabrication claims typically involve a person being charged with or convicted of a crime based on fabricated evidence; the opinion does not state that Parcell was charged with a crime.

The court applied the same reasoning to the due-process claim. To the extent that claim was based on an inadequate investigation, the court held that allegations of an inadequate law-enforcement investigation are insufficient to state a § 1983 claim without another recognized constitutional right.

The court rejected the municipal-liability claim because Parcell did not link the city’s alleged policies or practices to a constitutional violation that he suffered.

Disposition

The court concluded that Parcell again failed to state a federal claim and dismissed the first amended complaint for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied further leave to amend because Parcell had not cured the defects identified in the earlier screening order and the filings did not indicate that he could state a viable federal claim. The order expressly dismissed the first amended complaint without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the file.