Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation And Parks District

Background

Robert Barroca and Raelynn Gomes, both proceeding without lawyers, filed an amended complaint asserting eight claims against the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District; park rangers and other individuals; Tya Modeste, identified as a spokeswoman for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office; the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office; and U.S. probation officers Razan Ghishan and a Jane Doe officer.

The opinion addressed two motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally sufficient claim. Modeste and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office moved to dismiss Claim Seven, Barroca’s defamation claim. Ghishan moved to dismiss Claim Eight, which alleged that Ghishan and the Jane Doe officer violated Barroca’s and Gomes’s Fourth Amendment rights by arresting Barroca and entering and searching Gomes’s Hayward home without probable cause.

Claim Seven: Defamation

Barroca alleged that Modeste intentionally reported incorrect information about his criminal history to news organizations to damage his reputation. The court applied the California Tort Claims Act, including California Government Code section 911.2. That law requires a claim for damages against a public entity to be presented within six months after the cause of action accrues.

The court found that the alleged events accrued on May 30, 2024, but the Sheriff’s Office did not receive Barroca’s written tort claim until May 22, 2025. The court also found that Barroca had not applied for permission to submit a late claim and could no longer do so because more than one year had passed since accrual. It therefore ruled that Claim Seven against the Sheriff’s Office failed to comply with section 911.2 and had to be dismissed with prejudice.

The court separately considered Modeste. Because the alleged conduct occurred within the scope of her employment with the Sheriff’s Office, the court applied California Government Code section 950.2, which bars a claim against a public employee when the corresponding claim against the employing public entity is barred. The court rejected the exception in section 950.4 because Barroca’s amended complaint identified Modeste as the Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, showing that he knew she was acting as an agency employee. The court concluded that Claim Seven against Modeste was also barred.

Claim Eight: Fourth Amendment and qualified immunity

The plaintiffs asserted a constitutional damages claim under Bivens against Ghishan, a U.S. probation officer. They alleged that Ghishan lacked probable cause or a warrant to search Gomes’s Hayward residence after Barroco was arrested there. Ghishan argued that qualified immunity barred the claim and that the court should not create or extend a Bivens remedy to this type of claim.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court explained that Barroca’s probation search condition allowed a U.S. probation officer to search his person, residence, or property under his control at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, based on reasonable suspicion of contraband or a violation of release conditions.

The court stated that a probationer’s expectation of privacy is reduced by such a search condition. It also relied on authority allowing a warrantless search of a third-party residence when there is probable cause to believe that the probationer lives there, while recognizing protection for spaces exclusively controlled by the third party.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that it was objectively unreasonable for Ghishan to believe Barroca lived at the Hayward residence. The court cited Barroca’s repeated absence from his registered Belmont address, his admission that his conduct created a false impression that he lived elsewhere, information linking him to the Hayward address, surveillance indicating he may have stayed there overnight, his arrest after being called out of the residence, and his possession of a key. The court concluded that these facts supported probable cause to believe Barroca resided there and that Ghishan’s search was covered by the search condition. It therefore held that Ghishan was entitled to qualified immunity and that Claim Eight against her was barred.

Disposition

The court stated that, because qualified immunity resolved the claim against Ghishan, it did not need to decide whether a Bivens claim could be extended to Fourth Amendment claims against U.S. probation officers.

The court granted the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and Tya Modeste’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. It granted Razan Ghishan’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court also denied Barroca’s motion to strike Ghishan’s supplemental brief, finding it meritless, and stated that the dispute over whether a key opened the front door or a screen door did not affect its probable-cause analysis.