Juricich v. County of San Mateo

Background

Michael Juricich sued the County of San Mateo, the County of San Mateo Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Sheriff Michael H. Koehler, and Doe defendants 1–50. His claims arose from a December 1, 2018 encounter in San Carlos, California. Juricich alleged that Koehler grabbed him, struck him in the face, forced his arm behind his back, took him to the ground, placed a knee on his head, and helped handcuff him. He also alleged that he was not allowed to replace his colostomy bag, was questioned at a sheriff’s substation, and was held at the Redwood City Jail for several hours without an explanation for his arrest.

The complaint asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, four state-law claims, and a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They sought dismissal of the Monell claims against the County and Koehler, the negligence claims against the County and Sheriff’s Office, and the ADA claims against all defendants. Juricich opposed the motion and submitted additional facts that he sought to include in an amended complaint.

Monell Claims

A Monell claim seeks to hold a local government liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation caused by an official policy, custom, or practice. The court explained that Juricich had to plausibly allege a constitutional right, a municipal policy or custom, deliberate indifference to constitutional rights, and that the policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged violation.

The court found the complaint deficient because it alleged no constitutional violations apart from Juricich’s own incident and did not allege that Koehler had policymaking authority. Juricich argued that an incident report supported additional allegations concerning inadequate training about probable cause in domestic-violence arrests, the use of investigations to harass citizens, and failure to discipline deputies. The court concluded that these proposed allegations still concerned only one incident and did not identify a widespread practice or specify the policy, custom, or practice that caused his injury. The motion concerning the Monell claims was therefore granted with leave to amend.

Negligence Claims

The County and Sheriff’s Office argued that Juricich could not pursue direct negligence liability against public entities without identifying a statute imposing that liability. The court explained that California law generally requires a statutory basis for direct public-entity liability, while a public entity may face derivative, or vicarious, liability for negligent acts or omissions of its employees under California Government Code § 815.2.

The court found that the complaint did not make clear whether the negligence claims against the County and Sheriff’s Office were based on direct liability, vicarious liability, or both. The fourth cause of action grouped the defendants together without distinguishing among them. Because Koehler had not moved to dismiss the negligence claim against him, the court stated that, if Juricich could allege negligence against Koehler, he should also be allowed to allege derivative claims against the County and Sheriff’s Office. The motion to dismiss the negligence claims against those two entities was granted with leave to amend, and Juricich was required to clarify the basis for those claims.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claims

For a Title II ADA claim, a plaintiff must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was excluded from or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services or was otherwise discriminated against, and that the exclusion, denial, or discrimination occurred because of the disability. The court recognized that ADA claims involving arrests can include a wrongful-arrest theory or a reasonable-accommodation theory. The latter concerns a failure to accommodate a disability during an investigation or arrest that causes greater injury or indignity than other arrestees experience.

Juricich stated that he could allege more facts about his disability, the effect of living with a colostomy bag, defendants’ awareness of his disability, and the accommodation he needed. The court held that he needed to identify the disability, explain defendants’ awareness, specify the reasonable accommodation that should have been provided, and explain how the failure to provide it caused greater injury or indignity. The court also noted that the ADA does not provide a claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and that the complaint did not clarify whether Juricich sued the individual defendants in their official or individual capacities. The motion to dismiss the ADA claims was granted with leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick vacated the scheduled hearing and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligence claims against the County and Sheriff’s Office and the Monell and ADA claims against all defendants, with leave to amend. The order stated that Juricich could file an amended complaint within 15 days of February 10, 2020.