Perryman v. City of Pittsburg

Background

Trenell Perryman alleged that on April 26, 2019, he was driving his twelve-year-old son to school in Pittsburg, California, when the vehicle ran out of gas. Perryman walked to a gas station, leaving his son in the vehicle, and returned with a gas can. He alleged that Officer Lee Borman and Sharon Kumar were near the vehicle, and that Borman accused him of driving a stolen vehicle, conducted multiple pat-down searches, and tried to handcuff him. Perryman alleged that, after he tried to end the encounter, Borman pursued and tackled him, tearing his right shoulder rotator cuff. He also alleged that the vehicle was searched and seized.

Perryman’s First Amended Complaint asserted six causes of action, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Pittsburg under the municipal-liability doctrine commonly called Monell liability. The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief. The motion challenged the Monell claim under two theories: that a City policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation, and that City policymakers ratified the alleged conduct.

Policy-or-Custom Theory

The court held that the First Amended Complaint plausibly pleaded municipal liability based on a policy or custom. A municipality cannot be held liable merely because it employs someone who allegedly violated the Constitution. Instead, the plaintiff must connect the alleged violation to an official policy, a longstanding custom or practice, a deliberately indifferent failure to act, or conduct by a final policymaker.

The court found that Perryman identified specific alleged customs and policies, including a practice described as “hurt a person – charge a person” and a practice of covering up constitutional violations through inadequate investigations, incomplete or false police reports, false statements, and witness intimidation or coaching. Perryman also identified ten other lawsuits involving alleged physical altercations and uses of force by the City’s police officers. Because the complaints identified the cases by number and named the City as a defendant, the court found it reasonable at the pleading stage to infer that the City had notice of those proceedings. Taking the allegations as true, the court concluded that they plausibly suggested both a policy or custom and deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

The court therefore denied the City’s motion to dismiss the Monell claim to the extent it was based on a policy-or-custom theory.

Ratification Theory

The court reached a different conclusion regarding ratification. Ratification requires allegations that an authorized policymaker knew about the alleged constitutional violation and actually approved the subordinate’s decision and the basis for it. The court found that Perryman had alleged facts suggesting the City was aware of prior alleged police misconduct, but had not alleged facts showing how City policymakers approved or ratified the conduct at issue.

The court characterized Perryman’s allegations that policymakers approved prior conduct and deliberately endorsed officers’ decisions as conclusory and unsupported. The complaint did not identify the action that supposedly constituted approval. The court therefore granted the City’s motion to dismiss the Monell claim to the extent it was based on a ratification theory.

Disposition

The court granted Perryman leave to amend the First Amended Complaint to address the requirements described in the order. If he chose to amend, the court stated that he had to file the amended complaint by February 26, 2021. The order did not decide whether Perryman would amend. In summary, the court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion to dismiss: the ratification theory was dismissed subject to amendment, while the policy-or-custom theory remained in the case.