Johnson v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Andrew Lee Johnson sued the City of San Jose, several San Jose police officers, Santa Clara County, and several county deputies. The lawsuit arose from Johnson’s 2014 arrest, roughly three years of pretrial detention, prosecution for attempted murder, and eventual acquittal. Johnson alleged that police officers destroyed, withheld, or altered evidence connected to the shooting investigation. He also alleged mistreatment in jail, including beatings by Deputies Reeves, Ruban, and Dominguez and repeated denial of psychiatric medication.

The court had previously dismissed Johnson’s original complaint and allowed him to amend it. In the First Amended Complaint, Johnson agreed to dismiss the Third Cause of Action. Defendant Jereh Lubrin did not respond to the amended complaint and was not a party to the County Defendants’ motion addressed in this order.

Judicial Notice

The court took notice of the existence of Johnson’s motion in the criminal case concerning lost evidence and the trial court’s verbal ruling on that motion, as well as the arguments, analysis, and legal rulings in those documents. It did not take notice of factual allegations in them. The court found the District Attorney’s opposition and a separate appellate order irrelevant to its analysis and did not take notice of those documents.

City Defendants’ Motion

The City Defendants sought dismissal of claims involving alleged fabrication and suppression of evidence, conspiracy, continued unlawful detention and malicious prosecution, and related liability against the City. They argued that a prior criminal-court ruling reinstating the attempted-murder charges established probable cause and prevented Johnson from relitigating that issue.

The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It explained that the relevant California decision recognized exceptions when investigating officers allegedly fabricated or suppressed evidence. Johnson alleged that police officers did so and concealed their conduct until his trial.

The City Defendants also argued that the criminal trial judge’s ruling on Johnson’s lost-evidence motion conclusively established that the officers had not destroyed or suppressed evidence. The court disagreed. The criminal judge had found that Johnson had not shown bad faith sufficient to justify dismissing the criminal charges, but had allowed cross-examination about the witnesses’ credibility and had not finally decided Johnson’s request for an adverse jury instruction. Because the ruling was not final and on the merits for purposes of issue preclusion, it did not prevent Johnson from alleging that the City Defendants suppressed or fabricated evidence. The court denied the City Defendants’ motion.

County Defendants’ Motion

Johnson brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the deputies and the County for allegedly cruel and unusual confinement, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the County and unidentified county employees.

For the First and Second Causes of Action, the County Defendants argued that California’s two-year statute of limitations barred claims based on events occurring before October 12, 2016. The court held that the claims were timely under California’s tolling rule. It relied on binding Ninth Circuit precedent holding that continuous custody, rather than whether the custody occurred before or after trial, controls the tolling question. Johnson had allegedly remained continuously confined from his arrest until his acquittal. The court therefore denied the County Defendants’ motion as to the First and Second Causes of Action.

For the Ninth Cause of Action, Johnson alleged that unidentified jail employees told him after his acquittal that he might be quarantined for five days and refused to return his clothing and shoes when he was released. California’s Government Claims Act required him to present an administrative claim to the proper government entity within six months. The court held that the amended complaint merely stated, as a legal conclusion, that Johnson had complied with the requirements. It did not allege facts showing that he submitted the claim to the proper entity.

The court denied leave to amend. Johnson had made nearly the same unsupported allegation in his original complaint and had already been given an opportunity to add supporting facts. The court also concluded that the facts described by his counsel would not establish proper presentation because the claim had been submitted to County Counsel rather than the required county office. The court granted the County Defendants’ motion with prejudice as to the Ninth Cause of Action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Third Cause of Action because Johnson agreed to dismiss it. It denied the City Defendants’ motion. It denied the County Defendants’ motion as to the First and Second Causes of Action and granted the motion with prejudice as to the Ninth Cause of Action.