Bell v. Williams

Background

Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the corrected fourth amended complaint. They challenged the Monell allegations in the third cause of action and the sixth cause of action alleging retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights. The court held a hearing on November 13, 2020.

Monell allegations

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local government may be liable when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. It cannot be held automatically responsible for an employee’s unconstitutional conduct merely because the employee works for it. A plaintiff may proceed by alleging an unconstitutional policy or custom, a deliberately indifferent failure to train or create a needed policy, or approval of the conduct by an official with final policymaking authority.

Bell alleged that CCSF employees had a pattern or practice of misusing SORT and safety cells, that employees lacked training, and that prior incidents supported the existence of a policy or custom. The court found these allegations conclusory and sparse. The complaint did not provide details about other alleged incidents, and Bell’s general reference to an earlier lawsuit was not enough to show a widespread practice or that different training was required.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Monell allegations and granted Bell leave to amend. The court stated that a revised Monell claim would need to allege more than isolated or sporadic incidents. Bell also asked to add a theory that then-Captain Fisher ratified the deputies’ actions. The court explained that this theory would require allegations that a defendant with final policymaking authority knew about and approved the decisions at issue.

First Amendment retaliation

Bell alleged that individual defendants retaliated against him after he filed a written grievance accusing Deputy Leung of sexual harassment. He alleged that Leung singled him out for discipline and that other defendants carried out or approved the discipline. Bell’s opposition also suggested that an initial verbal complaint, in addition to the written grievance, was protected conduct.

The court concluded that the complaint did not sufficiently connect Bell’s protected activity to the retaliatory discipline by each individual defendant. It granted Bell leave to amend so he could clarify whether the protected conduct was the verbal complaint, the written grievance, or both, and specify when the complaints and retaliatory actions occurred. For each defendant, Bell also needed to allege facts showing an intent to retaliate in order to silence or punish him; speculation was not enough.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and granted Bell leave to amend. The court set December 4, 2020, as the deadline for an amended complaint and warned that it was not inclined to grant further leave if the fifth amended complaint did not correct the identified deficiencies.