Nordgreen v. Scotts Valley Police Department

Background

Justin Nordgreen sued the Scotts Valley Police Department, the City of Scotts Valley, and Officers Trevor Hutchinson, Aaron Roberts, and Nicholas Stoeberl in their individual and official capacities. He alleged that the officers used excessive force during a March 17, 2023 traffic stop and asserted five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state law.

Nordgreen alleged that officers followed him after he drove through a shopping-center parking lot and continued toward his home rather than immediately stopping. He said officers encountered him in his driveway, ordered him to provide his license, brought a police dog to the scene, pointed a gun at him, detained and handcuffed him, and held him in a police car for about 45 minutes. He also alleged that an officer looked into his car, questioned him after he asked for a lawyer and said he would remain silent, and required him to perform field sobriety tests.

The claims and the court’s analysis

Nordgreen’s five claims alleged: (1) First Amendment retaliation; (2) excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; (3) failure by Officers Roberts and Stoeberl to intervene; (4) unreasonable search and seizure by Officers Hutchinson, Roberts, and Stoeberl; and (5) municipal and supervisory liability against the City, the department, and the individual defendants.

For the retaliation claim, the court held that Nordgreen did not plausibly connect his earlier speech or lawsuit against the school district to the officers involved in the traffic stop. He did not identify facts showing that those officers knew about the earlier lawsuit or acted with retaliatory hostility because of it. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss Count 1.

For the Fourth Amendment claims, the court said Nordgreen needed to allege more specific facts. It stated that he had not shown that force was actually used or that he was aware of the alleged use of force at the time. The court directed him to use the incorporated body-camera footage and identify relevant timestamps. Because the failure-to-intervene claim depended on the excessive-force claim, the court required a factual foundation for the excessive-force allegations before that claim could proceed. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately identify what or where the officers searched, and did not allege that an officer entered the car or seized Nordgreen’s property. The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4.

For the municipal-liability claim, the court explained that a city cannot be held liable merely because it employs the officers. Nordgreen had not sufficiently alleged a persistent municipal policy or facts showing that such a policy caused the alleged violations. The court granted the motion to dismiss Count 5. It stated that any claim based only on failure to supervise, monitoring, or respondeat superior—the theory that an employer is automatically responsible for an employee’s conduct—could not proceed.

Other requests and disposition

The defendants asked the court to incorporate body-camera footage referenced in Nordgreen’s complaint. The court granted that request and considered the footage incorporated by reference. The defendants also asked the court to strike portions of the complaint concerning Nordgreen’s public-records request. The court denied that request because it was not yet clear that the allegations were irrelevant and motions to strike are disfavored.

Judge Noél Wise granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The order did not end Nordgreen’s opportunity to amend the pleading; it required him to file a second amended complaint within 21 days from the order.