Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

Background

Gabriel Gonzales sued the City of San Jose and San Jose Police Department Officer David Lezama after an encounter on December 9, 2019. Gonzales alleged that, while he was riding a bicycle, Lezama yelled at him to stop, drove onto the sidewalk, and struck him with a patrol vehicle. Gonzales alleged that he was pinned against a cemetery fence, was thrown against the patrol vehicle and onto the ground during the arrest, was taken to a medical center in a neck brace, and suffered pain, emotional distress, a concussion, and a possible torn anterior cruciate ligament.

Gonzales originally sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Lezama used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. His first amended complaint added claims against the City and the officer for municipal liability under the doctrine commonly called Monell liability, excessive force under California’s Bane Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

The court considered the factual allegations in the first amended complaint as true for purposes of the motion. It did not consider additional facts raised in the parties’ briefing because those facts were not alleged in the complaint.

Excessive-force claim

The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. That standard requires consideration of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the suspected offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person resisted or tried to flee.

The court identified three alleged uses of force: the patrol vehicle’s contact with Gonzales, Lezama’s throwing Gonzales against the vehicle and handcuffing him, and Lezama’s throwing Gonzales to the ground after the arrest. The court found that the complaint did not clearly describe the force used by the patrol vehicle. It questioned whether the vehicle lightly contacted Gonzales as a barricade or struck him as an impact weapon. It also noted that Gonzales had allegedly refused to stop and had ridden away, which could support the use of forceful conduct to make an arrest.

The court found that Gonzales had not alleged enough facts to plead a constitutional violation and granted the motion to dismiss the excessive-force claim with leave to amend. On qualified immunity—a legal protection that can shield government officials from damages unless they violated a clearly established right—the court did not decide whether the right was clearly established because it found no adequately pleaded constitutional deprivation. The court also stated that Gonzales had not shown clearly established law involving comparable facts, while noting that the effect of a patrol vehicle could be greater than bodily force.

Municipal liability

The court dismissed the Monell claim against San Jose because Gonzales did not allege specific facts showing that a City policy, longstanding practice or custom, final policymaker’s decision, or deliberately indifferent failure to train caused the alleged violation. The complaint described City policies as unconstitutional without identifying a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or officially adopted decision. The court also found that allegations about prior incidents were too vague and that two incidents were insufficient to establish a longstanding custom. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim against San Jose with leave to amend.

Bane Act claim

The California Bane Act requires intentional interference, or attempted interference, with a constitutional or legal right through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The court explained that, in an excessive-force case, the force itself can satisfy the coercion requirement, but the plaintiff must also show that the officer specifically intended both to use force and to use force that was unreasonable under the circumstances.

The court found that Gonzales had not alleged enough facts to show that Lezama intended the force to be unreasonable. Because the court also found the federal excessive-force claim inadequately pleaded, it concluded that Gonzales had not adequately pleaded the related constitutional violation required for the Bane Act claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim with leave to amend.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court found the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim insufficiently pleaded. It treated Gonzales’s allegation that Lezama specifically intended to cause severe emotional distress as a legal conclusion rather than a specific fact. Because the claim relied on the same conduct as the excessive-force claim, and the complaint did not adequately allege a constitutional violation or extreme and outrageous conduct, the court granted the motion to dismiss this claim with leave to amend.

Government Claims Act

For state-law claims seeking damages from a public entity, California’s Government Claims Act requires the claimant to submit an administrative claim and have it rejected before filing suit. The court treated that requirement as an element of the state-law claims, not merely as a procedural step.

Gonzales filed his claim with San Jose on December 16, 2019, and filed the lawsuit the next day. The court found that his state-law claims had not yet accrued when he filed the original complaint, so he could not add those claims later through an amended complaint after the Government Claims Act requirements were satisfied. The court granted the motion to dismiss the state-law claims for failure to comply with the Act. Although it suspected that amendment might be futile, it granted leave to amend so Gonzales could allege additional facts showing why the state-law claims should not be dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Gonzales leave to amend. If he amended, he had to file the amended complaint by July 10, 2020. The court stated that failure to file a timely amended complaint would result in judgment for the defendants, and that any amended complaint could not add claims or defendants without the court’s permission.