Solis v. City of Sunnyvale

Background

Chad Solis sued the City of Sunnyvale, Chief of the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety Phan Ngo, and officers Joel Lockwood, Kelly Nguyen, Matty Maxwell, and Joseph Meadows. He alleged that the officers detained him, used excessive force while taking his apartment key, arrested and jailed him, and entered his apartment without a warrant or his permission. His claims invoked the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Constitution article I, section 13, and California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act. He also asserted that the City was responsible under the municipal-liability framework from Monell v. Department of Social Services.

The defendants moved to dismiss claims against Chief Ngo, the City’s Monell claim, the California Constitution claim, and the Bane Act claim against Ngo. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support legal relief. For purposes of this motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true.

Claims Against Chief Ngo

The court held that Solis did not adequately allege a causal connection between Ngo’s conduct and the officers’ alleged excessive force or unreasonable search and seizure. Ngo was not present during the incident. Solis alleged that Ngo was responsible for department employees, policies, training, supervision, and control, and that Ngo knew or should have known about the officers’ conduct. The court found these general allegations insufficient to show that Ngo personally participated, acted culpably in training or supervising the officers, acquiesced in the violations, or knowingly failed to stop conduct that would cause constitutional injury.

The court therefore granted with leave to amend the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Solis’s claims under § 1983 against Ngo.

California Constitution Claim

Solis’s second claim sought damages for false arrest and false imprisonment under article I, section 13 of the California Constitution. The court explained that this constitutional provision does not provide a direct cause of action for monetary damages, although it may support nonmonetary relief. Solis did not seek declaratory or injunctive relief in his complaint and did not oppose dismissal of the damages portion of this claim.

The court granted with leave to amend the defendants’ motion to dismiss Solis’s claim under article I, section 13 against all defendants, so that he could seek appropriate declaratory or injunctive relief.

Municipal Liability

Solis alleged that the City had policies, customs, or practices involving excessive force, false arrests, unreasonable searches and seizures, inadequate training, and ratification of unconstitutional conduct. The court found that the complaint did not provide sufficient facts showing an official policy, a longstanding practice or custom, deliberate indifference in training, or a final policymaker’s deliberate ratification of the officers’ conduct.

The court found that the allegations about prior lawsuits, officer retention, and citizen complaints were too vague, too old, not sufficiently similar, or otherwise inadequate to establish a longstanding City practice. It also found that the allegations about inadequate training and ratification were conclusory and lacked specific supporting facts.

The court therefore granted with leave to amend the motion to dismiss Solis’s § 1983 claim against the City of Sunnyvale for Monell liability.

Bane Act Claim Against Ngo

The defendants argued that Solis’s Bane Act claim failed against Ngo because the complaint did not allege threats, intimidation, coercion, or violence by Ngo. Solis did not oppose dismissal of this claim against Ngo.

The court granted without leave to amend the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim against Ngo.

Disposition and Next Deadline

The court’s order was as follows:

- The motion to dismiss all § 1983 claims against Ngo was granted with leave to amend. - The motion to dismiss all claims under California Constitution article I, section 13 was granted with leave to amend to seek appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief. - The motion to dismiss Solis’s Monell-liability claim against the City was granted with leave to amend. - The motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim against Ngo was granted without leave to amend.

Solis’s amended complaint, if any, had to be filed by November 4, 2020. The court stated that the amended complaint could not add claims or parties without permission. If no timely amended complaint was filed, Lockwood, Meadows, Nguyen, and Maxwell were required to answer by November 18, 2020.