Solis v. City of Sunnyvale

Background

Chad Solis alleged that, around 1:00 a.m. on September 13, 2019, Sunnyvale police officers responded to a report about loud noises and concern that someone was struggling to open an apartment door. Solis said officers questioned him, demanded his apartment key so they could search his home, and threatened to send him to jail if he refused. He alleged that officers then used force to take the key, including grabbing him, shoving him against a wall, striking him in the throat, throwing him to the floor, pinning him down, and handcuffing him.

Solis alleged that officers took him to jail, where he was held overnight for about six hours. He said he was charged with disturbing the peace and resisting or delaying officers. He also alleged that officers entered his apartment after arresting him without a warrant or his express permission.

Solis’s amended complaint asserted five claims: a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of the California Constitution; a Fourth Amendment excessive-force and unreasonable-search-and-seizure claim under § 1983; a § 1983 claim against the City under the municipal-liability doctrine from Monell v. Department of Social Services; and a claim under California’s Bane Act.

Motion and Legal Standards

Defendants Phan Ngo and the City of Sunnyvale moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The motion targeted Solis’s first claim against Ngo and fourth claim against the City. The court noted that the motion to dismiss all claims against the individual officers was denied.

For supervisory liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a sufficient connection between the supervisor’s own conduct and the constitutional violation. A supervisor may be liable for personal involvement, culpable action or inaction in training or supervision, acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct, or conduct showing reckless or callous indifference to others’ rights.

Under Monell, a municipality can be liable under § 1983 when an official policy, long-standing custom, practice, or final policymaker’s decision causes a constitutional violation. A failure-to-train theory requires facts showing that a particular training deficiency amounted to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

Claims Against Ngo

The court granted the motion to dismiss the first claim against Ngo, without leave to amend. The court emphasized that Ngo was not present during the events involving Solis. It also found that Solis’s allegations about Ngo’s leadership of a use-of-force working group, hiring of an outside consultant, and a police association’s vote of no confidence did not show that Ngo caused, directed, or knowingly allowed the alleged excessive force, search, or seizure.

The court further found that Solis’s allegations that Ngo created unconstitutional policies and procedures were conclusory. They did not identify a specific policy or event initiated by Ngo that caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court stated that the amended complaint still did not allege that Ngo knew about or was directly involved in the decisions leading to the incident.

Claims Against the City

The court also granted the motion to dismiss the fourth claim against the City of Sunnyvale, without leave to amend. Solis alleged that the City maintained a custom or policy of excessive force and failed to train its officers. The court found that the allegations did not sufficiently identify a long-standing practice or custom. The lawsuits and incidents Solis cited were too vague, too old, too dissimilar, or did not result in findings that the City maintained a custom of permitting excessive force.

The court declined to consider additional events described only in Solis’s opposition brief, because a court generally cannot consider material outside the complaint when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court added that even if those allegations were considered, they described isolated and dissimilar incidents and still would not establish a municipal practice or custom.

The court also rejected Solis’s failure-to-train theory. It found that his allegations about inadequate training, failure to discipline, failure to use a force continuum, and outdated training were largely legal conclusions. The complaint did not provide enough facts showing a program-wide training deficiency or deliberate indifference by the City.

Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because Solis had already amended his complaint and had not cured the deficiencies identified in the earlier order. The court ordered that the motion to dismiss the first claim against Ngo was granted without leave to amend, the motion to dismiss the fourth claim against the City for Monell liability was granted without leave to amend, and the motion to dismiss all claims against Lockwood, Meadows, Nguyen, and Maxwell was denied. The four officers were ordered to answer the amended complaint by January 4, 2021.