Torres v. San Francisco Human Services Agency

Background

Jesus Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the San Francisco Human Services Agency and Trent Rhorer in San Francisco Superior Court. The defendants removed the case to federal court. Torres’s first amended complaint alleged that his County Adult Assistance Program benefits were improperly terminated. He asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim and a municipal-liability claim under Monell.

The complaint alleged that Torres did not attend a September 29, 2016 appointment to submit monthly income reports because of acute lower-back pain. His benefits were not paid on October 1, 2016, and his benefits were later terminated even though he alleged that he submitted the required form. Torres requested a fair hearing but canceled one scheduled hearing. The County later denied another hearing request, explaining that the earlier proposed termination had been suspended during the hearing process and was then put into effect. His benefits were restored as of February 3, 2017.

Motion and analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Torres did not timely oppose the motion, but the court treated his response to an order to show cause as his opposition because he was representing himself.

Claims against Trent Rhorer

The court concluded that the first amended complaint named Rhorer only in his official capacity and made no allegations about his individual conduct. An official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the governmental entity. The court therefore dismissed all claims against Rhorer with prejudice because the City and County of San Francisco was the proper defendant.

Due-process claim

The court held that Torres could not state a § 1983 claim for violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process. The court explained that due process required an impartial administrative hearing opportunity before termination of benefits, not necessarily that a hearing actually occur. The notices attached to the complaint repeatedly warned Torres that his benefits could be discontinued if he did not submit the required reports. The court also noted that Torres had been offered a fair hearing, scheduled one, and later canceled it. The court concluded that he had been afforded the required hearing process and dismissed the first cause of action with prejudice.

Municipal-liability claim

The court also dismissed the Monell claim with prejudice. A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs someone who allegedly violated a constitutional right. The plaintiff must allege, among other things, a constitutional deprivation caused by a municipal policy or custom. Because the court concluded that Torres had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation, it found that he could not state a viable Monell claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in full and without leave to amend because any amendment would be futile. The court also discharged the September 27, 2019 order to show cause and ordered the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not provide the judge’s name, identifying the judicial officer only as a United States Magistrate Judge.