Shaffer v. Wilson

Background

Devin Shaffer, a state pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint against San Jose Police Department officers and Safeway Corporation employees. He alleged that on June 26, 2019, Safeway employees Deena Sandoval Gonzales, David Joseph Banuelos, and Veronica De La Cruz harassed and falsely accused him of shoplifting. He alleged that Banuelos and Gonzales pushed and struck him, and that Banuelos used a racial slur. Shaffer acknowledged putting merchandise in his pocket on the way to the register but denied trying to shoplift.

Shaffer alleged that Officers David Wilson, Mark Huiskens, and Gabriela Jefferson arrived during the scuffle. He alleged that Huiskens placed him in a chokehold from behind and continued choking him after he was on the ground, even though Shaffer was not resisting and had followed commands. He also alleged that Jefferson applied handcuffs tightly and pulled on them, and that Huiskens applied pressure to his wrist, causing severe pain. Shaffer further alleged that the Safeway employees gave false statements and that the officers prepared false or conflicting reports. He sought money damages and an order requiring defendants to take some action.

Screening Standard

Because Shaffer is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers or employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual detail to make relief plausible. For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action taken under state law.

Rulings

Safeway defendants. The court dismissed all claims against Safeway Corporation and its employees with leave to amend. Private companies and their employees generally are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. The court stated that Shaffer could proceed against them only if an amended complaint provided sufficient facts showing that they acted under state law through a close connection with the government, joint action, governmental compulsion, or another recognized test.

Excessive force. The court held that Shaffer stated a claim that Officers Huiskens and Jefferson used excessive force. The Fourth Amendment protects people who are arrested from unreasonable force, and the court found that the alleged chokehold on a nonresisting person and painful handcuffing were sufficient at the screening stage. The court dismissed the excessive-force claim against Officer Wilson with leave to amend because the complaint did not provide enough information about what Wilson did during the encounter.

False reports and false arrest. The court dismissed these claims with leave to amend. It explained that claims seeking damages for an allegedly invalid arrest or prosecution may be barred unless the arrest or resulting conviction has been invalidated. Shaffer was required to clarify in an amended complaint whether he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a crime related to the arrest.

San Jose Police Department. The court dismissed all claims against the San Jose Police Department with leave to amend because Shaffer did not allege facts connecting the department to his claims. The court added that, if Shaffer intended to assert municipal liability, he would need to allege facts about a specific government policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged injury; merely naming the department or asserting that a policy existed would not be enough.

Request to file a late claim. Shaffer separately asked for permission to file a late § 1983 claim, arguing that incarceration, serious mental-health issues, and delayed access to police reports supported extending the filing deadline. The court denied the request without prejudice. It declined to decide the timeliness issue during screening because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and the complaint was being dismissed with leave to amend. The court stated that Shaffer could litigate the issue later if defendants raised it as a defense.

Disposition and amendment deadline

The court denied the late-filing motion without prejudice. It found cognizable excessive-force claims against Huiskens and Jefferson and dismissed all other claims with leave to amend. Shaffer was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include every claim and supporting fact Shaffer wishes to pursue and may not incorporate the original complaint by reference. If he does not amend within the deadline, the case will proceed only on the excessive-force claims against Huiskens and Jefferson.