Brockman v. City of Monterey

Background

Todd Brockman sued the City of Monterey and police officers Aaron Delgado, Bryce Morgan, Sabrina Perez, and Mayhar Roohbakhsh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. The lawsuit arose from officers’ response to a report that someone near Brockman’s home was firing a rifle.

According to the complaint, officers went to Brockman’s home at about 1:00 a.m. with their guns drawn. They entered after Brockman opened the door, searched parts of the home and property, and searched a guest house occupied by two tenants. Brockman alleged that a later police report falsely said he had consented to the entry and search. He also alleged that body-camera footage and related logs were incomplete or altered, and that officers omitted witness statements.

Brockman asserted four claims: (1) unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment against the individual officers; (2) Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the City under a municipal-liability theory; (3) Fourteenth Amendment due-process violations based on deliberate fabrication of evidence against the individual officers; and (4) conspiracy to violate his civil rights against the individual officers.

Motion and rulings

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim, to dismiss claims two, three, and four. They did not challenge claim one, the unreasonable-search-and-seizure claim.

Brockman agreed that claim two, the claim against the City under the municipal-liability theory, should be dismissed at that stage. The court dismissed that claim and granted Brockman leave to amend it.

The court found that claim three did not clearly identify the due-process theory Brockman intended to pursue. The complaint described alleged fabrication and alteration of evidence provided in connection with a restraining-order case, but Brockman did not adequately explain how the alleged conduct affected that case or what harm resulted. In his opposition brief, Brockman instead described the claim as interference with meaningful access to the courts. Because that theory was not adequately pleaded in the complaint, the court granted the motion to dismiss claim three, dismissed the claim, and granted leave to amend.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss claim four, dismissed it, and granted leave to amend. The court explained that a civil-rights conspiracy claim requires an underlying civil-rights violation. As pleaded, Brockman appeared to base the conspiracy claim on the same evidence-fabrication and due-process allegations that the court dismissed. The court said Brockman could clarify in an amended complaint if he instead intended to base the conspiracy claim on the allegedly unreasonable search and seizure.

Result

The court dismissed claim two based on Brockman’s concession, dismissed claim three for failure to allege enough facts to state a plausible claim, and dismissed claim four insofar as it appeared to rely on the due-process claim. The court granted leave to amend those claims. Brockman could not add new claims or parties without further permission. Claim one was not dismissed and remained pending. The amended complaint was due September 18, 2020. The court stated that the City would be dismissed if Brockman asserted no claims against it in the amended complaint.