Henry v. City of San Pablo

Background

Curtisa Henry is representing herself and was granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of claims filed by a person proceeding without the filing fee and permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Henry alleges that on July 3, 2024, Hercules police stopped her rental car because it was reportedly involved in a carjacking. She alleges that officers removed her from the car, handcuffed her, and initially told her she could leave. She then alleges that Officer Jose Torres slammed the car door, pulled her away from the car, threw her face down, restrained her arm, placed his knee on her neck, and caused her shoulder to come out of its joint. She alleges that officers did not provide medical care despite her repeated complaints, and that jail personnel delayed treatment and did not obtain recommended shoulder X-rays. She was released on July 8, 2024, and the complaint states that no criminal charges were filed.

Claims and analysis

Henry asserts five claims:

Claim One: false arrest

The court found Claim One sufficiently alleged and timely. The allegations that Henry told officers the car was a rental, denied knowing about a carjacking, and was released from handcuffs before being arrested supported a plausible inference that Officer Torres and the two unidentified arresting officers lacked probable cause. Although the arrest occurred on July 3, 2024, the court held that the false-arrest claim accrued when Henry was released from custody on July 8, 2024. Because she filed the complaint on July 6, 2026, the court concluded that this claim was timely.

Claim Two: excessive force

The court found that the allegations plausibly suggested the force used against Henry was not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. However, it concluded that the claim accrued on July 3, 2024, when the alleged force occurred. Because Henry filed more than two years later and alleged no basis for tolling the limitations period, the court found Claim Two untimely and ordered her to show cause why it should not be dismissed as to all defendants.

Claim Three: medical care

The court treated the claim against Officer Torres and the unidentified officers involved in the arrest as a Fourth Amendment claim for objectively reasonable post-arrest care. It found that portion untimely because the alleged failure to obtain medical attention occurred, and was known to Henry, on July 3, 2024.

The court treated the claim against unidentified personnel at the Martinez jail and West County Detention Facility as a Fourteenth Amendment claim. It found that portion timely because the alleged denial of care continued through Henry’s custody, which ended on July 8, 2024. Although the allegations were limited, the court found them sufficient at the screening stage because Henry alleged severe pain, a shoulder that was not functioning properly, delayed access to a doctor, failure to obtain recommended X-rays, and repeated requests for care. Thus, the court found Claim Three sufficiently alleged only against the unidentified defendants who allegedly failed to provide adequate medical care while Henry was in custody.

Claim Four: substantive due process

The court stated that Claim Four appeared to be based on the alleged excessive force and denial of medical care. It concluded that the theories based on excessive force and post-arrest medical care were untimely. To the extent the claim was based on false arrest or denial of medical treatment while Henry was in custody, the court stated that it was timely but appeared duplicative of Claims One and Three. The court ordered Henry to show cause why Claim Four should not be dismissed in its entirety as untimely or, for the theories that were not untimely, as duplicative.

Claim Five: Bane Act

The court identified two problems with the Bane Act claim. First, Henry did not allege that she had timely presented her damages claim to the appropriate state claims board, as required when suing a public entity or public employee under California’s Government Claims Act. Second, the court concluded that the claim was based on the alleged excessive force on July 3, 2024, and was therefore untimely under the applicable two-year limitations period. The court ordered Henry to show cause why Claim Five should not be dismissed in its entirety.

Claims against government entities

The court found no viable claims as currently pleaded against the City of San Pablo, the City of Hercules, or Contra Costa County. Henry’s complaint did not assert claims under the municipal-liability doctrine associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services, and the Bane Act claims against the entities were insufficient for the reasons discussed above. The court stated that Henry could amend to add a municipal-liability claim connected to constitutional violations that the court had not found untimely, but warned that conclusory allegations would not be enough.

Order

The court did not enter the proposed partial dismissals in this order. Instead, it ordered Henry to file either an amended complaint or a response explaining why the identified claims are sufficient by October 21, 2026. If she does not respond by that date, the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be partially dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The case-management conference scheduled for October 7, 2026, was vacated.