Keith Bohren v. City of San Jose

Background

Roxanne Bohren filed a putative class action based on her alleged wrongful arrest by the San Jose Police Department and subsequent booking at the Santa Clara County Main Jail. The first amended complaint asserted six causes of action: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest; (2) a § 1983 claim for discriminatory arrest; (3) a claim against the City of San Jose under Monell; (4) a Monell claim against Santa Clara County; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligence.

The City of San Jose and San Jose Police Officer Avila moved to dismiss claims one, two, and five for failure to state a claim. They also sought a more definite statement and asked the court to strike references to unidentified defendants and to federal claims Bohren mentioned but did not assert. Santa Clara County moved to dismiss claims four, five, and six. Bohren acknowledged that her complaint needed amendment in response to the San Jose defendants’ motion and did not respond to the County’s motion.

Rulings on the San Jose Defendants’ Motion

The court dismissed claims one, two, and five against the San Jose defendants with leave to amend. The court stated that there was no dispute about the legal deficiency of those claims and directed Bohren to include any additional allegations supporting the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim in the amended complaint itself, rather than in her response to the motion.

The court granted the request to strike references to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the Commerce Clause because Bohren referred to those provisions without bringing claims under them. The court stated that she could include those claims in an amended complaint if she chose to assert violations under those laws.

The court also granted the request for a more definite statement concerning Bohren’s reference to unidentified law in a video of a book from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. library. If she wanted to rely on that law, she had to provide a legal citation. The court denied the request to strike references to Doe defendants, explaining that defendants’ identities may be unknown before a complaint is filed and that Bohren had alleged facts about the Doe defendants’ conduct.

Rulings on Santa Clara County’s Motion

The court dismissed claim four against Santa Clara County with leave to amend. A § 1983 claim requires allegations that the defendants acted under state law and deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. The court found that Bohren had not alleged a constitutional right to be housed with transgender women or identified authority supporting that asserted right. It also found that she had not adequately pleaded a Monell claim because she did not allege that the County had a policy amounting to deliberate indifference to a constitutional right and that the policy was the moving force behind the alleged violation.

The court dismissed claims five and six against Santa Clara County without leave to amend. It relied on California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2), which generally bars public-entity liability for an injury to a prisoner. The court stated that a person brought to a jail or similar facility for booking becomes a prisoner upon initial entry under penal processes, and cited decisions finding that the statute bars emotional-distress and negligence claims against a county government based on injuries arising from detention in jail.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. It ordered Bohren to file an amended complaint no later than January 28, 2021. Judge Beth Labson Freeman vacated the scheduled hearing because the motions were appropriate for decision without oral argument.