Greene v. City of San Francisco

Background

Quinci Greene, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that on September 4, 2024, security officers at the San Francisco Public Library told him he was suspended and ordered him to leave. Greene alleged that he complied, but that the security officers and San Francisco Sheriff’s Department deputies then pushed him against a wall, punched and attacked him, handcuffed him, held him in the library’s security office for more than an hour, and took him to the San Francisco County Jail. He alleged that he was stripped naked, required to take a COVID-19 test, and held for two days without being taken before a judge.

Greene also alleged that library security officers repeatedly forced him to leave the library between 2021 and September 2024. An attached document showed that his library privileges had been suspended because of a September 22, 2022 incident and that the suspension expired on July 24, 2024. Greene named the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Main Library, San Francisco Main Library Security, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, and unidentified individual defendants.

The complaint asserted claims described as extreme negligence; invasion of privacy and false arrest; prolonged detention, overdetention, and false imprisonment; assault, battery, and excessive force; unlawful search and seizure; and emotional damage and mental stress. It also cited numerous statutes, constitutional provisions, and other documents without clearly linking them to particular claims.

Screening and Rule 8

Because Greene had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court found that the complaint was lengthy and difficult to follow because it cited many authorities and presented multiple theories without clearly identifying the factual and legal basis for each claim. The court stated that Greene could clarify any claims it had misunderstood or omitted by filing an amended complaint.

Civil-rights claims under Section 1983

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against a person acting under state law who violates rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The court held that the City and County of San Francisco was a proper Section 1983 defendant, but that the San Francisco Public Library, its security office, and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department were municipal departments that could not be sued under Section 1983. The court therefore found that the Section 1983 claims were inadequately pleaded against those departments.

The court stated that the unidentified sheriff’s deputies and library security officers could be treated as individual defendants at this early stage. It recommended allowing Greene to proceed against them as Doe defendants while discovery could identify them. The court also found that the library security officers could potentially be treated as state actors because Greene alleged that they acted jointly with the sheriff’s deputies.

First Amendment claims

The court found that Greene had not alleged specific facts showing that any defendant interfered with his religious practice, so his religious-practice claim did not state a First Amendment claim.

The court separately recognized a First Amendment right to some level of access to a public library. Taking Greene’s allegations as true at the pleading stage, the court found a plausible inference that excluding him was unreasonable because he alleged that he was not being disruptive and that his suspension had expired. The court therefore found that Greene stated a library-access claim against the Doe library security officers who ordered him to leave. The court found that Greene had not stated that claim against the City and County of San Francisco because he had not adequately alleged municipal liability.

Fourth Amendment claims

The court found that Greene’s allegations supported Section 1983 claims against the Doe defendants for unlawful arrest and excessive force. Greene alleged that the officers assaulted and arrested him even though his library suspension had expired and he was complying with their instructions to leave.

The court also considered Greene’s allegation that he was detained for two days without a probable-cause hearing. It explained that a person generally must receive a prompt judicial probable-cause determination after a warrantless arrest. However, the court found that Greene had not alleged an official City policy or procedure causing the detention, which was required for a claim against the City and County of San Francisco. The court therefore found that the complaint did not state a viable claim against the City under Section 1983.

Municipal liability

Under the rule commonly called Monell liability, a local government is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly caused an injury. The plaintiff must allege that an official policy, longstanding practice or custom, final policymaker’s decision, or ratification caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that Greene had not alleged specific facts showing that an official policy caused the alleged violations. It found that his allegations that he had been asked to leave the library several times between 2021 and 2024 lacked details about the circumstances, including whether his library privileges were suspended at those times and why. The court concluded that Greene failed to state a viable Section 1983 claim against the City and County of San Francisco.

State-law claims

The court also considered Greene’s apparent state-law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, intrusion into private affairs, and false imprisonment. California’s Government Tort Claims Act generally requires a claimant to timely present a written claim to a public entity and allege compliance with that requirement or an excuse for noncompliance before bringing suit. The court found that Greene alleged neither compliance nor an excuse, so these claims failed as currently pleaded.

Order to show cause

The court ordered Greene to show cause why the case should not be dismissed in part. He may respond by October 14, 2025, either by filing an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or by explaining why the existing complaint is sufficient. The court stated that, if Greene does not respond or cure the deficiencies, the undersigned will recommend that the inadequately pleaded claims be dismissed and that the claims the court found valid be allowed to proceed. This order itself did not dismiss the case.