Ruiz v. Ahern

Background

Jose Ruiz filed one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing damages claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleged that, on October 3, 2017, while he was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail, Deputy Sheriff M. Solopow pulled him from his cell, handcuffed him, took him to the ground with extreme force, and pressed a forearm against his neck. Ruiz alleged that he suffered shoulder and facial pain and a blood clot requiring surgery.

Ruiz also alleged that Sheriff Greg Ahern failed to train, supervise, or control Solopow and was therefore responsible for the constitutional violation. He sued Alameda County as well. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally recognized claim.

Statute of Limitations

The incident occurred on October 3, 2017, and Ruiz filed the action on February 11, 2020. Section 1983 uses California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, with California’s tolling rules. California law allows up to two years of tolling while a person is imprisoned on a criminal charge.

Defendants argued that this tolling rule did not apply to people held in county jail. The court rejected that argument, following Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the tolling rule applies to people held in county jails as well as state prisons. The court concluded that Ruiz’s claim was timely if his continuous custody ended in May 2018, as his counsel reported at the hearing.

The court nevertheless granted the motion to dismiss as to timeliness because Ruiz’s amended complaint did not allege his release date. The court stated that Ruiz could amend the complaint to add that fact.

Solopow and Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court held that Ruiz adequately alleged such a violation. Accepting the amended complaint’s allegations as true, Solopow used extreme force against Ruiz while Ruiz was handcuffed and posed little or no threat.

The court rejected defendants’ reliance on allegations from Ruiz’s original complaint that he had physically resisted. The amended complaint superseded the original complaint, and factual disputes could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The court therefore denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the excessive-force claim against Solopow based on qualified immunity.

Claim Against Ahern

The court dismissed Ruiz’s claim against Ahern under Rule 12(b)(6). Ruiz did not allege that Ahern personally participated in the incident. He also did not identify a specific training or supervision policy, explain how it was deficient, identify actions Ahern should have taken, or allege that Ahern knew about and failed to address Ruiz’s grievances. The court found that Ruiz had not alleged a sufficient causal connection between Ahern’s conduct and the alleged use of force.

Claim Against Alameda County

Ruiz did not expressly identify the legal basis for his claim against Alameda County. At the hearing, he stated that he was not bringing a claim under Monell, the doctrine governing when a local government may be liable for constitutional violations caused by its policies or customs. He offered no alternative basis for County liability, and his opposition did not address defendants’ arguments on this issue. The court granted the motion to dismiss Ruiz’s claim against the County.

Punitive Damages

The court found that Ruiz’s punitive-damages claims against Ahern and the County were moot because the claims against those defendants were dismissed. As to Solopow, the court held that punitive damages were not barred as a matter of law because Ruiz sued him individually and alleged that Solopow maliciously or recklessly used extreme force against a handcuffed person. The court concluded that those allegations could support a finding of the required evil motive, intent, or reckless or callous indifference. It denied the motion to dismiss punitive damages against Solopow.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. It ordered Ruiz to file an amended complaint by July 29, 2020, including his release date and any amendments attempting to revive claims against Ahern or Alameda County. The opinion does not state that any dismissal was with or without prejudice.