Martinez v. City of Santa Rosa

Background

The plaintiffs’ complaint concerned the Santa Rosa Police Department’s response to Black Lives Matter protests on three nights. The complaint alleged numerous Fourth Amendment violations, including that officers indiscriminately fired tear gas into peaceful crowds. It alleged that the conduct occurred at the direction of the police chief and continued despite reports that protesters had been seriously injured.

The complaint also alleged that the City lacked a written tear-gas policy and failed to train officers in using chemical agents and less-lethal projectiles. For First Amendment violations, the plaintiffs alleged that the City had a custom or policy of interfering with assembly, protest, and political expression, and that it failed to train and supervise officers or issue corrective instructions after violations.

Fourth Amendment Municipal-Liability Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim based on Fourth Amendment violations. Municipal liability under the rule commonly associated with Monell requires allegations that the constitutional violation resulted from conduct attributable to the municipality, such as an official policy, a decision by a policymaker, or approval of subordinate conduct.

The court held that the allegations plausibly supported municipal responsibility through ratification or decision-making by a policymaker. Because the complaint described an organized, department-wide response to the protests, the court found it reasonable at the pleading stage to infer that the police chief directed the response or approved the officers’ conduct. The chief’s public defense of the officers also supported that inference.

The court separately concluded that the alleged failure to train could support municipal liability if the allegations proved true. Although the court expressed concerns about the allegations’ accuracy, it held that those concerns were not a basis for dismissal. The alleged failure to train in crowd control and the use of tear gas was described as sufficiently serious to reflect deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

First Amendment Municipal-Liability Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim based on First Amendment violations. It held that the allegations that the City had a custom or policy of violating protesters’ speech and assembly rights were generic and boilerplate and did not adequately support liability for alleged retaliation by individual officers based on speech or filming.

The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend. It stated, however, that if discovery on the claims continuing in the case revealed evidence supporting a First Amendment municipal-liability claim, the plaintiffs could seek leave to amend at that time.

Disposition

The order denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss: the Fourth Amendment municipal-liability claim remained in the case, while the First Amendment municipal-liability claim was dismissed without leave to amend. Judge Vince Chhabria issued and signed the order.