Best v. Virgil Smith

Background

Brian Best proceeded without a lawyer and sued the Sonoma County Sheriffs Department, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, and an unidentified deputy. He alleged that an officer arrested him after he exited a highway and entered a shopping plaza, and that deputies later placed him in a neck hold, forced him unconscious, restrained him, and threatened to use a taser if he moved.

Best asserted claims under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and state-law claims for assault, battery, excessive force, negligence, and torture. He filed the lawsuit on April 25, 2019, concerning events beginning on April 24, 2017. He had sought permission to file a late government claim in October 2018, but Sonoma County rejected it as untimely.

Rulings

The court granted Sonoma County’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or alternatively for a more definite statement. The court also granted in part and denied in part Best’s request for leave to amend.

The court dismissed Best’s state-law claims with prejudice. It ruled that California’s Tort Claims Act required him to present a claim within six months after the injury, or, in certain circumstances, to seek permission to present a late claim within one year. Because Best sought permission more than a year after the incident, the court concluded that he could not allege compliance and that amendment could not cure the problem. The court therefore denied leave to amend as to those claims.

As to the federal claims, the court concluded that they were not necessarily time barred at the pleading stage because Best proposed allegations that the interaction with the deputies occurred after midnight on April 25, 2017. But the court found that Best had not adequately alleged facts showing that Sonoma County was liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the municipal-liability rule commonly called Monell, a county may be liable when an unconstitutional act results from an official policy, an established custom, a deliberate failure to act, or ratification by an official with final policymaking authority. The court found that Best had not adequately alleged one of those circumstances.

Effect of the Order

The order left Best able to seek amendment concerning the remaining federal claims. It required any second amended complaint addressing those claims to be filed by March 9, 2020. The state-law claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the order did not use a prejudice designation for the federal-claim ruling. The order terminated Docket Numbers 34 and 40.